1921-03-04

PRESENTING OF PETITIONS

Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce) :: Mr. Speaker I think there used to be something on the Order Paper about presenting petitions. Has the rule been changed in that regard?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Petitions may be presented on the Order "Motions", or they may be handed to the Clerk at any time during the day, with the endorsement of the hon. gentleman's name on them.



REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Summary Report of the Mines Branch of the Department of Mines for the calendar year ended December 31, 1919.-Hon. Mr. Calder.
Annual Report of the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1920.-Hon. Mr. Calder.
Report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1920.-Hon. Mr. Calder.
Copy of statement showing number of enfranchisements under the Indian Act, from April 1, 1920 to February 18, 1921 

Hon. Mr. Calder.
Copy of additional regulations made under authority of the Soldier Settlement Act of 1919.-Hon. Mr. Calder.
Returns showing the Orders-in-Council passed since the last returns under the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act, the Forest Reserves and Parks Act, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act.- Hon. Mr. Calder.
Statement showing lands sold by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company during the year ended 31st December, 1920.- Hon. Mr. Calder.
List cf permits issued to take intoxicants into the North West Territories during

the year ended the 31st Decemer, 1920.- Hon. Mr. Calder.
Annual Report of Board of Historical Publications for the year ended March 31, 1920.-Hon. Mr. Calder.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 19, to amend the Exchequer Court Act. He said: The purpose of this Bill is to provide that, in cases of appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, in which case the Commissioner is entitled to appeal and to defend his decision, there shall be on the part of the Commisioner a right to appeal to the Supreme Court. There is presently on the part of the other party a right to appeal to the Supreme Court, and as the Commissioner figures in the proceedings as a representative of the public interest, it seemed only right that he should have the same right of appeal that the private party has.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. Arthur Meig-hen, (Prime Minister), it was ordered that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution aproving the agreement dated the 18th day of June, 1920, between the Government of the Dominion of Canada and the Government of certain of His Majesty's colonies in the West Indies, which agreement is termed, "The Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement, 1920."
Mr. BUREAU:: Is there anything in the statutes making it plain that in this case 'to-morrow" means "Monday"?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The phraseology that is always used is that on the next sitting day, provided it is a Government day, it is competent for the Government to take up the question.


Mr. McMASTER:: A Joshua.



OLEOMARGARINE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. S. F. Tolmie, (Minister of Agriculture), it was ordered that the House do to-morrow resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider a re-
36i
solution to amend the Oleomargarine Act, 1919, so as to permit the manufacture in and importation of Oleomargarine into Canada, and the offering for sale and the having in possession for sale of Oleomargarine.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (Grey North) :: Mr. Speaker, in looking over the list of pairs in Hansard this morning, I find that the name of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) has not been entered as being paired with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie). There was a distinct understanding that they should be paired until 9.45 last evening, and as the hon. member for Provencher was good enough to extend that, they should have been entered as paired accordingly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The correction will
appear in consequence of the _ statement just made by the hon. member. There is in the Votes and Proceedings no formal record of pairs.



THE ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: When may the House
expect to receive the Estimates for the coming year?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance):: Next week.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the Order "Government Orders:"
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: We will proceed with the Government Orders this afternoon; but in view of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) is indisposed, and that of the four Bills which are marked as being printed in both English and French, three stand in his name, leaving only one to proceed with, with the unanimous consent of the House I will move that we proceed to questions, and after having dealt with them, we shall return to Government Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House proceeded to questions.
QUESTIONS	'
Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.
[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN press, limited
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Is it the intention of the Government to assist the Canadian Press Limited to the extent of contributing $20,000 yearly in order to buy an Imperial News Service from Reuter's?


Arthur Meighen: The Government has not decided to do so.



KIRKWOOD STEAMSHIP COMPANY

Joseph Archambault: Has the Government sold any patrol boats to the Kirkwood Steamship Company?
2.	If so, how many and what was the price of said sale?
3.	Was said sale advertised? If so, in what manner?
4.	What was the price paid by the Government for said boats when they were purchased?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.



LOANS TO GREECE AND ROUMANIA

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Have Greece and Roumania paid the interest to date on loans made to them by the Government of Canada?
2.	If so, what amounts have been paid and at what date?
3.	Are there now any matured interests which are unpaid?
4.	If so, when have they become due and what are the amounts?


Henry Lumley Drayton: 1, 2, 3, and
4.	Greece has paid to June 30, 1920, as follows:	To Decmeber 1, 1919, $7,834.79;
to June 30, 1920, $53,160.61, being in full to that date. Interest account to December 31, 1920., amounting to $153,916.63, was rendered in due course and the Overseas Branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce, London, has now been able to present same to the Representative of the recently established Greek Government in London for payment. Roumania has made no payment of interest. Interest due to October 1st, 1920, amounted to $909,526.34 and on April 1, 1921, the total interest due will be $1,475,234.96. Accounts have been rendered. The question of the payment of this overdue interest and future interest instalments, has been the subject of negotiation between Representatives of the Dominion of Canada and the Kingdom of Roumania. These negotiations are still in progress.



THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Has the Government been made aware of the date of the next Imperial Conference in London?
2.	Does the Government know what questions will be discussed?

3.	Has there been, any correspondence between this Government and the British Government on that subject?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to communicate its views to the Canadian Parliament on the different questions which will be taken up at that conference, and to iix a date for the discussion of these questions by the House, so that the delegates who will be sent to London might be acquainted with the opinion of the Canadian people on these questions in order to press their views at said conference.


Arthur Meighen: No date has yet been fixed for the next Imperial Conference and there is no intention that it shall be held this year. It is anticipated, however, that a meeting of the Prime Ministers of the different parts of the Empire will be held in June next.
2.	The agenda for this meeting of Prime Ministers has not yet been settled, but it is expected that among the subjects for discussion will be the question of the renewal of the Treaty of Alliance with Japan of the thirteenth July, 1911, and the question of naval policy based upon the principle of co-operation; while there will doubtless be a review and consultation upon the general course of the foreign policy of the Empire.
3.	Correspondence is proceeding upon the subject for discussion at the June meeting of Prime Ministers.
4.	Should there be an indication of a general desire on the part of the House of Commons for a discussion, the Government would be prepared to arrange facilities and would welcome expressions of opinion from all quarters; but in view of the fact that the meeting is of the nature of a conference, the Government could not depart from the invariable practice by making commitments in advance of the meeting. Necessarily any proposals resulting from the conference and affecting Canada must be subject to the approval of the Canadian Parliament.



LEASES FOR FEDERAL OIL LANDS

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Have the rules concerning the leases for Federal lands for the exploitation of oil wells been suspended by the Government?
2.	If so, when and for what reason?
3.	When does the Government propose to issue new Regulations?
4.	Is not the Government aware that, by delaying the promulgation of rules, it is favouring the Imperial Oil Company and protects that company against the smaller prospectors?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	Yes, in so far as the North West Territories are concerned.

2.	By Order in Council dated the 22nd January, 1921, P.C. 146. The Regulations prior to that date were specially designed to encourage and assist a vigorous search for oil on lands the property of the Crown, and were not well adapted to the conditions which had arisen as a result of the discovery reported to have been made of oil in quantity near Fort Norman in the Provisional District of Mackenzie, which discovery appeared to he of national significance. Such conditions were, therefore, made the subject of careful enquiry.
3.	New Regulations were duly established by Order in Council dated the 11th instant, P.C. 331.
4.	No. The delay extended only from the 22nd January to the 11th February, and was the shortest possible period within which the careful enquiry necessary for establishing new Regulations could be made. '



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT STEEL SHIP CONTRACTS

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How many steel ships are being built at Prince Rupert, British Columbia, to the order of the Canadian Government?
2.	What is the name of the person or firm which entered into said contract with the said Government?
3.	What will be the deadweight tonnage of said ships?
4.	What is the contract price for said ships?
5.	On what date were said contracts entered into?
6.	What amount has been advanced to the contractors on progress estimates?
7.	What further amount will the Government have to pay to complete these ships ready for sea?
8.	Will the contractor complete the said ships or have the Government been compelled to make other arrangements to complete said ships?
9.	What are such arrangements?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Two.
2.	The Prince Rupert Drydock & Engineering Company, Limited.
3.	Approximately 8,390 tons.
4.	$198.00 per ton D.W.
5.	The contract was negotiated with the John L. Mullen Construction Company (who afterwards assigned their interests to the Prince Rupert Drydock & Engineering Company, Limited) in October and November 1918. The Order-in-Council authorizing the construction of the ships is dated the 12th December, 1918. The formal contract was signed on the 21st February, 1919.
6.	No. 1 ship, $968,204.07, No. 2 ship, $882,090.00.
7,	8 & 9. The Wallace Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, Limited, has contracted to finish the ships on the basis of cost of labour, and material, which they will have to furnish, plus 8 per cent for profit.


Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How many steel ships are being built at Vancouver to the order of the Canadian Government?
2.	What are the names of persons or firms building said ships?
3.	What will be the deadweight tonnage of said ships?
4.	What is the contract price per deadweight ton for said ships?
5.	What further amounts will these cost to fit them ready for sea?
6.	On what date were said contracts entered into between the Government and the said contractors?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Two.
2.	Messrs. J. Coughlan & Sons.
3.	About 8,390 tons each.
4.	$167.50 per D.W. ton each.
5.	$65,000.00 each.
6.	7th April, 1920.



VICTORIA DRY DOCK CONTRACT

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has the Government entered into a contract to build a dry dock at. Victoria, British Columbia?
2.	If so, what is the name of the contractor?
3.	What was the amount of the tender?
4.	What are the names of the other persons or firms who submitted tenders and what are the amounts of their tenders?
5.	What was the amount paid for the land where said dry dock will be built?
6.	From whom was said land purchased?
7.	What will be the capacity of said dry dock when completed?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: 1,	2 & 3. Tenders were invited by public advertisement on September 14th, 1920, due December 9th, 1920, and on 30th December, 1920, an Order-in-Council was passed accepting the tender of the P. Lyall & Sons Construction Company, Limited, at schedule prices approximating $4,217,400 but the contract is not yet signed.
4. Sir John Jackson (Canada), Limited, tendered to construct at cost plus a fixed sum; the estimated value of work being placed by that Company at $5,021,000, and based on this the Company offered to carry out the work for a fixed fee of $750,000. If completed for less than estimate, the Company to receive 50 per cent of the saving in cost but if cost exceeded above

estimate, 5 per cent of the above fee to be deducted for every 10 per cent increase in cost, but in no case was fee to be less than $400,000.
5.	About 17 acres of land was expropriated and $34,000 tendered but refused and the compensation to be paid will be fixed by the Exchequer Court. Two smaller parcels, one of 0.57 acres for which $285 and another of 0.36 acres for which $800 was offered.
6.	The Hudson Bay Company owns the larger area; the Puget Sound Agricultural Company and the E. & N. Railway the smaller lots.
7.	Length, 1,150 feet; width, 125 feet; depth, 40 feet.



PAINTINGS IN SENATE CHAMBER

*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	'Wlill the paintirigB which decorate the Senate Chamber remain there permanently?
2.	Does the Government think there is no Canadian scenery worthy of that Chamber?
3.	Has the Government placed these paintings there in order to perpetuate in Canada the depressing spirit of war and armaments?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: 1, 2 and 3:	No.



EMBARGO ON CANADIAN CATTLE

Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Was there a promise given at the 1917 Imperial Conference that the embargo on Canadian cattle should be removed at the end of the year?
2.	If so, was the promise Carried out?
3.	If not, why?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	At the Imperial War Conference of 1917 the then President of the Board of Agriculture undertook to remove the restriction upon the importation of Canadian cattle into Great Britain.
2.	The restriction has not yet been removed.
3.	Unceasing efforts have been made by the Canadian Government to secure such removal, and it is hoped such efforts will meet with success.


*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the Government aware that there is at present an ambargo on Canadian cattle exported to Great Britain?
2.	If so, has there been any representations made by the Canadian Government for the repeal of such embargo?
3.	If so, when, and with what result?


Arthur Meighen: I think this question may be considered answered by the answer that was given to the question immediately preceding, of the hon. member for Restigouche and Madawaska (Mr. Michaud).



MONTREAL, AND TORONTO POSTMASTER-SHIPS-SUPERANNUATION

Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	Is there a pension attached to the position of postmaster in the cities of Montreal and Toronto?
2.	If so, what amounts did the Government pay as pensions, annuity or indemnity to former postmasters for the last five yars?
3.	To whom were these amounts paid?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	The postmaster at Montreal is under the Retirement Act, and a deduction of five per cent is made from his salary monthly and placed to his credit in the Civil Service Retirement Fund. When he leaves the Service, the total amount deducted will be returned with interest, or to his estate in the event of his death before leaving the Service.
The postmaster at Toronto is under the Superannuation Act, and if superannuated he would be entitled to an annual retiring allowance based on his length of service and his average salary for the last three years of service.
2.	Nil.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



DOMESTIC LOANS

Mr. VIEN:: 1.	How much did the Government raise in connection with the Domestic Doan, during the years 1916, 1917 and 1918 and 1919 respectively?
2.	How much did each province subscribe to each of the said loans?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Cash proceeds Dominion Loans, exclusive of cash receipts from War Savings Certificates, Debenture Stocks, etc.:
Year ended Mar. 31.
1916		$ 97,003,600 22
1917	
115,889,812	651918	
517,430,056	351919	
584,281,459	072.	The accounts of the department are
not compiled in such a way as to disclose information on this point.



OVERDUE INTEREST ON ADVANCES TO ROUMANIA

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has Roumania paid any of the instalments of interest due by her to Canada on account of the advances in wares and merchandise made by Canada to said country?
2.	If so, when, and what amount was paid?
3.	If not, why, and does the Government intend to take any action in this matter?


Henry Lumley Drayton: 1 and 2. No.
3.	The question of the payment of this overdue interest and future interest instalments has been the subject of negotiation between Representatives of the Dominion of Canada and the Kingdom of Roumania. These negotiations are still in progress.



MONTREAL POST OFFICE MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETY

Mr. CASGRAIN:: ,
1.	Is the Government aware that there is a Mutual Benefit Society under the'direction, control and supervision of the Postmaster of Montreal? .
2.	If so, is such Mutual Benefit Society legally authorized by the department and ratified by it?
3.	Is this within the scope and province of the duties of the Postmaster of Montreal?


Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	A co-operative system is in effect among the staff of the Montreal Post Office, but the department is not aware that it is under the direction, control and supervision of the Postmaster of Montreal.
2.	No authority is necessary from the department for such an organization.
3.	No, except in co-operation with other members of the Post Office staff.



GRANTS UNDER THE CANADA HIGHWAYS ACT

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What is the general policy of the Department of Railways and Canals as regards the nature of construction or improvement necessary to entitle any particular road to a grant under the Canada Highway Act, 9-10 Geo. V, Chapter 54?
2.	What sums of money have been paid to date to each of the provinces under said Act?
3.	Have plans for an improved highway between Quebec and St. Simeon been filed with the Department of Railways under the said Act?
4.	If so, when?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The general policy is to require a type of construction or improvement that, in the opinion of the province and of the Dominion, is the most practical and economical considering the requirements of traffic; due regard being had to permanency. A copy of the Act, Regulations and form of Project Statement may be had upon application to the department.
2.	Only payment made to date, $56,374.19 -to the province of Quebec.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



CHEQUES PAID TO HON. P. E. BLONDIN

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What are the amounts of the different cheques that were issued by the various departments of the Government to the Honourable P. E. Blondin, Postmaster General, for travelling expenses when in Europe as a colonel during the war?
2.	Were any of these funds returned to the Government when he resumed his duties as Postmaster General?
3.	If so, when and by whom?
4.	If not, why?
5.	Was there any correspondence exchanged between Sir Thomas White, then Minister of Finance, and the Honourable P. E. Blondin in reference to this matter?
6.	If so, will the Government lay said correspondence on the table of the House?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Cheques amounting to $8,460 were issued by the Finance Department, on requisition from the Post Office Department, to the Postmaster General, Hon. P. E. Blondin, as against his salary as such, while he was also a colonel in the army in Europe, but during which period he received no pay nor allowances from the Department of Militia and Defence.
2.	Yes. The full amount of $8,460 was returned by Hon. Mr. Blondin while still in Europe.
3.	11th May, 1918, by Acting Private Secretary.
4.	Answered by Nos. 2 and 3.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.



PRINCE RUPERT PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has the Government purchased a piece of land at Prince Rupert for the purpose of erecting a public building?
2.	If so, (a) from whom was said land purchased (b) and when?
3.	What is the frontage and depth of said lot in lineal feet?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: 1.	Yes, lots 16, 17, 18 and 19 of block 34, section No. 1.
2.	(a) From Vernon W. Smith, (b) on 29th April, 1913.
3.	100 by 100 feet, more or less.



HALIFAX DRY DOCK

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Did the Government expropriate the property of the Halifax Graving Dock, Limited, eommonly called the Halifax Dry Dock?
2.	Did the Government purchase or expropriate the Marine Railways at Dartmouth?
3.	When were said properties taken over by the Government?
4.	What price was paid by said Government for these properties, and when?
5.	Was said price arranged privately or otherwise?

6.	What disposal did said Government make of these properties, and to whom?
7.	Has the Government received payment for said properties?
8.	If so, what amount and when?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Halifax Graving Dock property taken over on 7th June, 1918.
4.	$1,545,137.35, including interest, on 7th October, 1920.
5.	Award was made by the Exchequer Court.
6.	Leased to the Halifax Shipyards, Limited.
7 and 8. Rent paid to 24th December, 1920, is $156,250.



IMPORTATION OP EGGS FROM CHINA

Mr. SMITH:: Is it the intention of the Government to prohibit the importation of eggs from China?


Henry Lumley Drayton: This information can only be given when the Budget is brought down.



ST. LAWRENCE CHANNEL-DREDGES AND TUGS

Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to make necessary repairs, during this winter and spring, to the dredges and tugs of the fleet organized for the dredging of the St. Lawrence channel?
2.	Is the Government aware that several vessels of this fleet have suffered serious damage for a number of years through lack of necessary maintenance and repairs, and that any delay in the carrying on of said repair works impairs all the more the value of said vessels?
3.	Is the Government aware that a certain number of said vessels are practicaly'discarded or abandoned along the shore on the St. Lawrence, in the vicinity of Sorel, and that they are liable to complete destruction?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes, to the equipment required for this season's operations.
2.	The Government is aware of the usual deterioration which is consequent on the vessels being tied up.
3.	No vessels of the ship channel fleet have been discarded or abandoned.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS-FRENCH INSCRIPTION

Mr. VIEN:: Who wrote the French inscription engraved on the base of the central column, in the entrance to the Parliament Buildings?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The inscription on the central column is a translation of the inscription, as finally adopted, which was recommended by the special committee appointed conjointly by the Senate and House of Commons to report on the method of celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the federation of the Dominion. The translation was made by A. D. Decelles, C.M.G., D. Lit., M.S.R.C., former General Librarian of Parliament.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- FREIGHT CARS

Thomas Vien: 
Hon. Mr. REID:: Quebec (Bridge), 236 empties; Herve Junction, 39 empties; La Tuque, 66 empties; Parent, 85 empties; Doucet, 141 empties; Amos, 9 empties.



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE

Mr. VIEN:: 1.	How many vessels of the Canadian Government fleet are at present in service?
2.	Between what ports do they sail?
3.	Do they ply on regular routes?
4.	How are they managed?


John Dowsley Reid: 1. 48.
2.	Between Canada and United Kingdom, West Indies, South America, British India, Australia and New Zealand, Newfoundland.
3.	Yes.	.
4.	By the Board of Directors of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, all of which Directors are Directors of the Canadian National Railways, and it is operated in conjunction therewith.



SOREL SHIPYARD DISMISSALS

Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Why were a number of workingmen in the Sorel Shipyards recently discharged?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to
have former activities resumed in the Sorel Shipyards? If so, when?	[DOT]


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE :: 1. On account of the lack of authorized work.
2. The Spring activities are starting and men are being re-engaged gradually.



INCOME TAX FIGURES

Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	What was the amount collected in each Province through the Income Tax?
2.	Out of this amount, how much was collected from farmers in each Province?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Total amount collected under The Income War Tax Act as at 28th February, 1921, according to Provinces:-
Nova Scotia and Prince
Edward Island	..	.	.$ 1,651,727	48New Brunswick	
994,727	35Quebec	
20,734,083	75Ontario	
28,061,667	25Manitoba	
5,040,695	73Saskatchewan	
1,466,184	49Alberta	
2,035,573	17British Columbia. .	..	2,668,710	13Yukon	
33,888	67Total	
62,687,258 02
2. Statement of Income Tax paid as at 31st March, 1920, on income realized by farmers during calendar years 1917 and 1918 by Provinces:-
Nova Scotia and Prince
Edward Island.. .	. ..$ 2,721	72New Brunswick	. . .. 2,393	30Quebec	. .. 9,500	78Ontario	. .. 67,974	75Manitoba	17Saskatchewan	. .. 340,900	98Alberta	. . . 361,218	39British Columbia.. .	. . . 22,203	63Y ukon	. .. 30	55Total	
957,980 27
The statistics for the calendar year 1919 are being compiled. Therefore, information concerning that year cannot now be given.



STRIKES IN CANADA

Mr. STEELE:: 1.	How many strikes occurred in Canada in each of the years 1913, 1914, 1919 and 1920?
2.	What was the total number of working days lost through strikes in each of these years?
3.	What was the estimated loss in wages in each year on account of strikes?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Number of strikes, in 1913, 113; 1914, 44; 1919, 298; 1920, 285.
2.	Total number of working days lost, in 1913, 1,287,678; 1914, 430,054; 1919, 3,942,189; 1920, 886,754.
3.	This is unknown.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-CONDUCTORS

Mr. VIEN:: 1.	How many railway conductors are employed on the Government railways, for the province of Quebec?
2.	What are their names?


John Dowsley Reid: The Canadian National Railways employ 296 conductors in the province of Quebec. It is not considered to be in the public interest to publish the names of these conductors.



RAILWAY SERVICES-WINNIPEG- QUEBEC

Mr. VIEN:: 1.	How much per bushel does it cost the Government railways for the transportation of wheat from Winnipeg to Quebec?
2.	What are the fixed charges, cost of operation and the overhead charges?
3.	What is the capacity of an engine on the Transcontinental between Winnipeg and Quebec?
4.	How many passenger and freight trains per day or per week are in operation between Winnipeg ar.d the Eastern stations on the National Transcontinental?


John Dowsley Reid: The cost of transportation of wheat depends on weather conditions, number of cars in a train, number of trains moving over the different sections, etc., and varies with these changing conditions.
There are no fixed charges on section between Winnipeg and Quebec. See also answer to No. 1.
Passenger engines vary in tractive effort from 29,000 to 38,000 pounds. Freight engines from 30,000 to 53,000 pounds.
One passenger train daily, in each direction, between Winnipeg and Cochrane, and between Cochrane and Quebec.
One passenger train daily, in each direction, between Quebec and McGivney Junction, N.B.
One passenger train tri-weekly, in each direction, between McGivney Junction, and Moncton, N.B.	.
Mixed train daily except Sunday, in each direction, between Winnipeg and Red-ditt.
Mixed train tri-weekly, in each direction, between Redditt and Sioux Lookout.
Mixed train tri-weekly, in each direction, between Hearst and Cochrane.
Mixed train daily except Sunday, in each direction, between O'Brien and Doucet, Doucet and Parent and Parent and Fitzpatrick.
Freight service is provided to handle business offering.



LOYOLA COLLEGE, MONTREAL

Mr. POWER:: 1.	Is the building known as Loyola College Building, situated at 68 Drummond Street, Montreal, now being leased by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment or any other department of the Government?

2.	If so, at what date was this lease made and for how long?
3.	For what purpose is the building now being used?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: 1.	Yes, leased by the Department of Public Works.
2.	1st January, 1919, to 1st January, 1924.
3.	Was originally used by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment as a hospital, and part is still being used for that purpose and part by the Department of Militia and Defence as a barracks.



UNEMPLOYMENT IN TORONTO, MONTREAL AND QUEBEC

Mr. POWERS:: 1.	What moneys were expended by the Federal Government up to February 15th, 1921, on unemployment relief in the city of Toronto, Montreal and Quebec?
2.	Through what agency were these moneys distributed and what was the cost of distribution?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	No account has been received from any of the municipalities named and, therefore, no moneys have been paid.
2.	Answered by reply No. 1.



GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has the Government been negotiating with the Norwegian Government for the sale of thirty-five ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?
2.	What were the terms of said arrangement or negotiations?
3.	What has been the result of said negotiations?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have not the answer with me, but I may reply at once "No" to each one of the questions.



MISSISQUOI BAY-FISHING

Mr. KAY:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to permit fishing with nets in Missisquoi bay during the open season this year?
2.	If not, what is the reason for not returning to the pre-war customs of permitting net fishing in these waters?
3.	Has the Government re-opened the question of net fishing in Missisquoi bay with the Government of the United States?
4.	If not, is it the intention of the Government to re-open this question for the taking of further evidence on behalf of the Canadian fishermen?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	No change in the existing regulations is at present under consideration.

2.	The prohibition of net fishing was not a war measure, but was found necessary for the conservation of the fish.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 1.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- GRADING

Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: 1.	How many miles of grading was completed on branch lines of the Canadian National Railway in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta during 1918, 1919 and 1920?


John Dowsley Reid: Grading and Tracklaying-1918.
'	Grading	Tracklaying
	Miles.	Miles.
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	Nil	NilLuck Lake	9.08	-MacRorie W	24.38	22.32Moose Jaw	1.50	1.50Swift Current . . . .	9.45	1.37Thunderhill	1.11	-45.52	25.19Alberta	Hanna, Medicine Hat	4S.11	2.17Munson Double Track	7.25	2.0155.36	4.18Summary	191S.	Manitoba	Nil	NilSaskatchewan	45.52	25.19Alberta	55.36	4.18100.88	29.37Grading- and Tracklaying-	-1919.Grading	TracklayingMiles.	Miles.Manitoba	Oakland Extension .	11.68	NilOchre River	9.31	-20.99	-Saskatchewan	Acadia Valley	11.5	NilEston S.E	25.81	-Jackfish Branch. ..	11.43	-Luck Lake	16.04	19.75MacRorie W	1.26	4.90Melfort-Humboldt ..	23.63	0.35Melfort N.E	18.72	-Peebles-Lampman .	17.96	-Swift Current.. ..	22.11	18.03Thunderhill	1.41	20.15149.87	63.18Alberta	Acadia Valley.. ..	8.21	-Hanna, Medicine Hat	61.00	48.08Munson, double track	7.15	6.75Oliver N.E	20.82	55.57Peace River	0.48	7.50Vegreville Calgary.	0.44	- '98.10	117.90
Summary		
	Grading	Tracklaying
1919.	Miles.	Miles.Manitoba	.. 20.99	NilSaskatchewan	.. 149.87	63.18Alberta	.. 9S.10	117.90268.96	181.OSGrading and Tracklaying-	-1920.Grading	TracklayingMiles.	Miles.Manitoba	Amaranth Extens'n 4.5	-St. Rose de Lac.	.. 9.63	-14.1	-Saskatchewan	Alsask S.E. . .	. 
19.7
Acadia Valley . .	. . 2.6	-Eston S.E	. . 5.2	-Humbolt-Melfort	. . 3.9	31.87Luck Lake	. . 6.1	-Melfort N.E.. . .	.. 11.7	-Peebles-Lampman. . 1. S	-Swift Current. . .	. . 4.1	7.14Thunderhill Extens'n 5.8	7.25Jackflsh Lake. .	. . 5.9	8.00Prince Albert N.E... 3.9	-Turtleford E.. . .	. . 1.6	-52.6	73.9Alberta	Acadia Valley .	. . 6.9	-Hanna-Medicine	Hat 5.1	8.0Oliver N.E. . . .	. . 0.4	20.9Onoway	. . 2.9	19.2Red Deer Spur .	. . 3.8	6.1Munson Double track 3.0	*-22.1	54.2Summary	Grading	Tracklaying1920.	Miles.	Miles.Manitoba	.. 14.1	-Saskatchewan	. .. 52.6	73.9Alberta	22 1	54.288.8	128.1Grading	Grading Grading	Tracklaying Tracklaying Tracklaying	1918	1919	1920Saskatche-	wan . 45.52 25.19	149.87 63.	18 52.6 73.9Manitoba	: 20.99 . .	.. . 14.1 . . ..Albert . 55.36 4.18	9S.10 117.	90 22.1 54.2100.88 29.37	268.96 181.08 88.8 128.1	Grand	Summary	Grading	Tracklaying1918	100.88	29.371919	268.96	181.081920	88.8	128.1458.64	338.552.	On what lines and in what respective provinces was the said grading done?
See answer to No. 1.
3.	Was steel laid on all grading completed?
No.
4.	If not, how many miles of steel were laid on branch lines during 1918, 1919 and 1920?
See answer to No. 1.
5.	How many (a) new box cars, (b) stock cars, (c) cabooses for conductors, (d) new locomotives, (e) new passenger, day, standard, tourist and colonist coaches were put in com-sion during the years 1918, 1919 and 1920?
New Equipment	put in	Commission	
during the years 1918, 1919,		1920.	
Description-	1918	1919	1920
Locomotives-			
Mikado	. 60	. -Consolidation.. . .	. . 60	-Pacific	. . 45	25	-Switching	. . 20	25	20Medium Pacific..	20Heavy Pacific. . .	10Sante Pe	25Freight-	185	50	75Box Cars	. . 9,728	2,892	2,2S5Stock Cars.. ..	. . 1,131	800	-Cabooses	25	13010,864	3,717	2,415Passenger-	Tourist Cars. . . .	20	-Colonist Cars. . . .	130	-Day Coaches . .	20Baggage Cars . .	30	-Mail Cars	20Dining Cars. . . .	. . 7	9 .Sleeping Cars ..	. . 14	18Observation Cars	1321	180	SO11,070	3,947	2,570



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-STE. ROSALIE-BAGOT

Mr. MARCILE:: 1.	Are the claims made by the farmers with regard to the running of the Canadian National Railway between Ste. Rosalie and Bagot Station all paid?
2.	If not, which of them have not been paid? Hon. Mr. REID:
1.	No.
2.	The following is a list of right-of-way
parcels still remaining to be compensated for:
Parcel No.	Owner.	Area.2,	Mile. O. Laflamme	2 069 acres.5,	Moise Houle	1-921	"8,	Narcisse Plant	0 116	"9,	Albert Pierre de Grandpre.7-190 "19, Henri St. Laurent	1-449	"21,	Ephriem Lecour (now Jos.' Bilodeau)	1-397 "22,	Henri St. Laurent	2-326	"26,	F. X. Lapierre	0-708 "Parcel No.	Owner.	Area.27,	Wm. Boisseau	0-516	acres.28,	Abram Roireau	0-764	"29,	Arthur Cabana	0-540	"30,	Louis Hebert	0-445	"32, Joseph Beland	0-352	"36, Joseph Bilodeau	0 -340	"42, Leopold Lincourt	'0-545	"44, Ambroise Lemonde	0 -679	"47, Louis Lemonde	0 -089	"


Mr. MARCILE:: 1.	Has the Government any intention of using the land now unused but formerly occupied by the Canadian National Railway between Ste. Rosalie and Bagot Station?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the Government to hand back this land to the respective former owners ?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The matter is at present under consideration by the Canadian National Railway management.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS

Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	How many employees have been appointed to fill the positions indicated in the notices sent to the members of the House of Commons by Mr. William Foran, Secretary of the Civil Service Commission of Canada, during the year 1920?
2.	How many persons from the province of Quebec have been appointed to such positions?
3.	What are the names of the said persons?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	1,263.
2.	80. Every vacancy in the province of Quebec has been filled by the appointment of a candidate resident in Quebec where such has been available and qualified, and candidates from the province of Quebec have also been appointed to positions at Headquarters in Ottawa as their names have been reached on the eligible lists. In addition to the 80 appointments to positions of which notice was sent to Members of Parliament, there were 268 postmasters appointed in the province of Quebec during the year 1920, all of whom were resident in the province.
3.	Robinson, R. E. (O.A.S.); Raymond, Abel; Boast, Chas. R. (O.A.S.); McDonald, Hugh G.; Dixon, Mrs. Margaret M.; Curtis, Nicholas (O.A.S.); Armstrong, Jas. H. O.; Rochon, Jos.; St. Onge, Joseph (O.A.S.); Desrosiers, Victorien (O.A.S.); McQuat, David D. (O.A.S.); Brophy, Maurice J. (O.A.S.); Lewis, Harrison J.; Samson, J. A.; Piche, Pierre; Barcelo, Jean J. E.; Renaud, D.; Bourgeois, J. A.; Gagne, Jos. C.; Richardson, Anna M.; Lapierre, Jos. A.; Tremblay, A. A. (O.A.S.); Goyette,

Jos. C.; Jackson, John (O.A.S.; Vechsler, Jack; Ruffet, Telesphore (O.A.S.); Beeho, H. A. (O.A.S.); Mills, S. (O.A.S.); Whiteaker, Frank (O.A.S.) ; Proulx, J. A. H.; Brisebois, Conrad; Belanger, Regina; Graveline, Wilfrid; Benoit, Pierre G. (O. A.S.); Burmester, H. L. (O.A.S.) ; Reffret, L. A.; Clouthier, Philippe; Marman, Miss Augustus; Bergeron, Irma; Jarry, C. E. (O.A.S.); Church, Jos. R.; Gongeon, Ar-mand; Monette, Henri (O.A.S.); Kite, Harry (O.A.S.); Cote, J. N. (O.A.S.); Worthen, H. R. (O.A.S.); Clarke, L. E.; Dumont, Joseph; Bilodeau, W. O.; Mar-cotte, Francois X. E.; Gelinas, Madame L. R.; Rolston, Wm. G. (O.A.S.); Trudeau, Irenee; McGillivray, Wm.; Villeneuve, R. A.; Dunn, Marion; Marquis, Maria; Pinard, J. A. (O.A.S.); Grisby, T. G. (O.A.S.) ; Fiset, Adjutor; Paradis, Chas. A.; Roy, Leopold J. A.; Caddott, Jean; Nadon, H.; Piche, Omer; Parent, Joseph; Barbeau, David (O.A.S.); Galipeau, Louis I.; Rom-bach, Harry; Daignault, Lucille; Roy, L. J. A.; Daignault, Ed.; Renaud, J. H.; Millette, C. E.; Tourigny, Olivier; Benoit, A. J. H. (O.A.S.); Seguin, Paul O.; Robi-taille, Hortense; L'Heureux, Chas.; Morin, Jos. A.
Note.- (O.A.S.)-Overseas Active Service.



IMMIGRATION-INFECTION DANGER.

Mr. POWER:: In view of the quarantine measures placed upon certain ports in the United States with regard to immigrants arriving thereat, and in view of the fact that a large number of infected immigrants are arriving in the United States, have any precautions been taken by the Dominion of Canada to prevent these immigrants from being diverted to Canadian ports?


Hon. Mr. GALDER:: It is true that
typhus cases have arrived at New York and the Federal Health Service of the United States have established rigid quarantine measures to prevent this disease entering the United States Any immigrants allowed to land in the United States will have passed so effective a cordon as to be assuredly free from danger and may safely be accepted by us should they cross our border.
The department, in anticipation of possible danger of this kind, some three months ago, sent Dr. H. B. Jeffs of the Immigration Medical Staff, to New York to look into and familiarize himself with the American system and report on any possible avenues of danger to Canada. On his return to Canada Dr. Laurin of Quebec followed him to New York for the same pur-

pose, and Dr. G. E. Martineau, Superintendent at Gross Isle Quarantine Station, Quebec, is proceeding to New York in a few days to continue the observations.
Our own quarantine stations on the Atlantic coast, namely, at Halifax and St. John, have been warned and are on the alert for any possible source of danger.



QUEBEC ORIENTAL AND A. Q. AND W. RAILWAYS.

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: X. Has the Minister of Railways and Canals received -any report from the Board of Railway Commissioners on the service given by the Quebec Oriental Railway and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway? If so, was any action taken on such reports?
2. If no action has been taken, is any contemplated in the public interest?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The Chairman of the Dominion Railway Board has unofficially made certain recommendations to the Minister of Railways and Canals, which have been taken into consideration. The Government is, however, unable to hold out any immediate hope that these railways will be taken over and included in the Canadian National System.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has any rolling stock been leased or sold by the Canadian (National Railways to the Quebec Oriental and Atlantic and the Quebec and Western Railways during the past year? If so, what amount?
2.	Was any application made by the companies mentioned for any such rolling stock?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Two coaches and one baggage car have recently been rented to the Quebec Oriental Railway by the Canadian National Railway management.
2.	The Quebec Oriental Railway applied as indicated in answer to Question No. 1.



BON A V ENT U RE-GASP E RAILWAY SERVICE.

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the Government taken any action during the past year to improve the railway service in the counties of Bonaventure and Gaspfi? If so, what action?
2.	Has any proposal been received from, or made to, the proprietors of the Atlantic Quebec and Western, and the Quebec and Oriental Railways, having for its object the linking up of those lines with the Canadian National System, by purchase, lease or otherwise? If so, what were these proposals and what action has been taken?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	There has been no complaint as to the service provided by the Canadian
National Railway through the county of Bonaventure.
2.	Proposals have been made from time to time looking to the lease or purchase by the Government of the lines in question. No action has been taken.
OAMiPBELLTON-CROSS POINT.


Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Have any complaints been received by the Government or any of its members concerning the ferry service between Campbellton, [N.GB., and Gross Point, Quebec? If so, what was the nature of these complaints?
2.	Is any action to be taken to remove the ground of such complaint? If so, what action?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes. That the ferry after 25th October, 1920, did not begin its trips until 7 a.m., instead of at 6 o'clock, as prescribed by the regulations, and that services were discontinued three weeks before the close of navigation.
2.	Yes. Instructions will be given to comply with the terms of the license; (b) The District Engineer reports that navigation was officially closed and all buoys removed on 17th November, but ferry did not stop until 25th November.


Charles Marcil: 1,	Has the Government or any of its members received a request lately for the erection of a highway bridge over the Restigouche river between Campbellton, N.B., and Cross Point, Quebec ?
2.	If so, (a) from whom and (b) what answer was given?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) From the Municipal Council of Escuminac, the Campbellton Board of Trade and a large deputation which waited upon the Minister of Public Works in January, 1921; (b) the subject matter of the petition will have the most careful consideration.



QUEBEC-SHAWINIGAN SERVICE.

Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Is the Government aware that the Canadian Northern Local train from Quebec City to Shawinigan is of absolute necessity to maintain traffic between the two cities and the various parishes such as St. Augustin, Neuville, Les Eeureuils, Donnacona and others situated on this line?
2.	Is it true that it is now proposed to cancel this train in the near future?
3.	Tf so, is not the Government aware that such action will deprive the Canadian National Raijways of a good revenue and occasion very serious damages to the population using this line?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	There have been two trains daily except Sunday, in each direction, providing accommodation between Quebec and Shaw-inigan Falls and the parishes referred to; the numbers of the trains being Nos. 9-10, 19-20. A portion of the same territory is also served by trains Nos. 13 and 14, which run daily.
2.	It is proposed to discontinue one train in each direction; No. 20, leaving Shawini-gan Falls 5.30 A.M., and train 19 leaving Quebec at 5.00 P.M. Train No. 9, leaving Quebec at 9.20 A.M., and train No. 10, leaving Shawinigan Falls at 4.45 P.M., will be continued, and should provide sufficient accommodation to meet local requirements.
3.	The earnings of these trains, except during certain summer months, do not justify the continuance of the double daily service.



HICKMAN-ALLEGED DEPORTATION.

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Is it true, as reported in a press despatch from St. Catharines, on February 17, 1921, that a man named Hickman, who claims to be a British subject, has been deported from Canada ?
2.	If so, what were the reasons for his deportation?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



LAW AND ORDER IN THOROLD.

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Has the attention of the Government been directed to a statement made by J. F. Hagerty, Vice President of the Thorold Plant of the Beaverboard Companies, and reported in the Canadian Press on February 19th., 1921, as follows:
"The seventy Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are on duty at present in Thorold and vicinity were despatched to that district by Dominion authorities at Ottawa. They were sent there to clean up the entire industrial district after Dominion secret service men had carefully made a survey of the conditions existing there."
2.	Is the foregoing statement correct?
3.	If so, at whose request and on whose authority were the Dominion Secret Service men and the 70 Royal (Canadian Mounted Polite sent to Thorold and vicinity?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	No.
2.	No. But the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were sent to assist local authorities in maintaining law and order.
3.	The 70 men of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were sent to Thorold at the request of the Attorney General of

Ontario, and on the authoriey of the Hon. the President of the Privy Council.
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT! RAILWAYS- DIVISIONAL POINTS.


Mr. VIEN:: 1.	How many divisional points are there on the Government Railways, and what are their names?
2.	In each of the said divisional points during 1919 and 1920, what were (a) gross receipts, (b) the operating costs, and (c) the surplus or deficit?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	There are 110 Divisional Points on the
Canadian National and Grand Trunk Pacific Railways, as follows:	Yarmouth,
Bridgewater, Middleton, Halifax, Truro, Stellarton, Mulgrave, Point Tupper, Sydney, Pictou, Oxford Jet., Cape Tormentine, Charlottetown, Souris, Tignish, Point du Chene, Moncton, St. John, Fredericton, Centreville, Newcastle, Loggieville, Bathurst, Campbellton, Mont Joli, Riviere du Loup, Levis, Ste. Rosalie Jet., Chicoutimi, Riviere-a-Pierre, Quebec (Limoilou), Joli-ette, Montreal, Bridge, Chaudiere Jet., Monk, Edmundston, Napadogan, Fitzpatrick, Parent, Doucet, O'Brien, Cochrane, Heart, Grant, Armstrong, Sioux Lookout, Redditt, Winnipeg (Transcona), Ottawa, Brent, Trenton, Bancroft, Brockville, Westport, Picton, Toronto, Parry Sound, Capreol, Foleyet, Hornepayne, Jellico, Port Arthur, Fort William, Atikokan, Rainy River, Fort Frances, Winnipeg (Ft. Rouge), Dauphin, Kamsack, Humboldt, North Battleford, Vermilion, Edmonton, Edson, Jasper, Lucerne, Blue River, Kamloops Jet., Boston Bar, Port Mann, Vancouver, Victoria, Swan River, Hudson Bay Jet., The Pas, Prince Albert, Brandon, Kipling, Regina, Saskatoon, Kindersley, Hanna, Calgary, Neepawa, Rivers, Melville, Waterous, Biggar, Wain-wright, Northgate, Riverhurst, Radville, Big Valley, McBride, Prince George, Endako, Smithers, Pacific, Prince Rupert.
2.	Railway accounting does not provide for earnings being shown for each divisional point.



MONTREAL AND NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL

Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to build a railway connecting Montreal with the Transcontinental ?
2.	If so, has the location of said railway been made, and where?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1. Policy of the Government in this respect will be made known by the Minister

of Finance when bringing down his estimates.
2. Answered by No. 1.



LEAGUE OF NATIONS-ARTICLE X

Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	Did the honourable the Minister of Justice, one of Canada's representatives at the meeting of the League of Nations held at Geneva in December, 1920, submit to the said meeting a motion asking for the elimination of Article 10 from the Covenant signed at Versailles?
2.	If so, was the honourable the Minister of Justice expresing the opinion of the Canadian Government?
3.	What became of the said motion?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Referred to a special Commission of the Council of the League for consideration and report at the next meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations.



ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is it a fact that the warden of St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary has resigned?
2.	If so, has the Government appointed a new incumbent and who is the appointee?
3.	What are the Qualifications required for such a post?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The position has not yet been filled.
3.	The position has been advertised by the Civil Service Commission,' setting forth the qualifications as follows:
Education equivalent to high school graduation and1 preferably university training; fire years of prison experience in a supervisory capacity or experience of similar character [DOT] and standard; familiarity with criminology and prison problems; administrative ability. Thorough knowledge of both French and English is essential.	[DOT]



ARTHUR YOUNG CO.-GRIFFENHAGEN

Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	Did the representatives of the Arthur Young Company, or Griffenhagen and Associates, or both, ask that they be paid their fees, emoluments, or remuneration for services rendered to the Civil Service Commission of Canada in Unted States currency, in order to secure the advantage of the difference in the rate of exchange?
2.	If so, were the requests granted?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.



&quot;CANADIAN RECRUIT&quot;

Mr. DUFF:: 1. What was the total cost of floating, repairing and making ready for sea, the Canadian Government steamship "Canadian Recruit"?
2.	What was the amount of insurance on said steamer?
3.	What was her value as appeared in the policies of insurance on said steamer?
4.	What is the amount which the marine adjusters found that the marine underwriters should pay 'toward said floating, repairs, etc., of said steamer?
5.	What amount of said adjustment has been paid or collected from said marine insurance companies?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 3.	Hull insured value, $578,571; disbursements, etc., $231,429; total insurance on vessel, $810,000.
4.	Adjustment is not yet complete, but on approximate cost of sea voyages, repairs, etc., as above (No. 1) the insurance payable by underwriters would be approximately $540,000.
5.	$350,023.79.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-SUPERANNUATION

Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is the Department of Railways aware that the old superannuated employees of the I.C.R. have never received any increase in the rate of their pension, neither before the war, nor during the period of stress when the cost of living was soaring to an excessive level?
2.	That the present rate of pension is a minimum of $15 per month and does not exceed $52.50 as a maximum in the case of the oldest employees?
3.	That all the employees of the I.C.R. system tveTe willing to pay a higher idue to the general funds so that such older employees may he given a pension that would enable them to live fittingly?
4.	Is the Department of Railways or the National Railways Commission willing to ac-ceed to the fair demand of those old employees and grant them a pension such as will protect them from .want in their old age?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	A revision of the present plan of superannuation is contemplated and under consideration by the management. It is the intention to submit any such proposals to consideration of employees before adoption.
2.	Answered	by	No.	1.	.3.	Answered	by	No.	1.4.	Answered	by	No.	1.



WAR LOANS AND INCOME TAX

Mr. RINFRET:: What is the total amount of the War Loans assented to by the Canadian Government, and as are exempt from the Income Tax?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The total
amount of domestic War Loans issued and outstanding January 31 which are exempt from taxation, $1,381,783,400.



ALBERTA SUPREME COURT

Mr. GRIESBACH:: Have the Judges of the Appellate and Trial Divisions of the Supreme Court of Alberta, created under chapter 3 of the Statutes of Alberta, 1919, whose salaries were provided by chapter 56 of the Statutes of Canada, 1920, been appointed?


Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: No; the appointments cannot be made until the Judicature Act of Alberta is brought into force by the Provincial Government by proclamation.



BUSINESS PROFITS TAX.

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is it the intention of the Government to reenact the excess Business Profits Tax for the ensuing year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: This question can be answered only when the Budget is brought down.



PERROT ISLAND BRIDGES.

Mr. LAFORTUNE:: Has the Government any intention of assisting in some way the construction of the bridges on Perrot Island, from the Ste. Anne de Bellevue side, on the part of the canal which it owns?


John Dowsley Reid: The matter has not been considered.



SOULANGES CANAL ROAD.

Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Has the Government the intention of constructing this year the macadam road running alongside the Soulanges Canal, from Cascades Point to Coteau Landing?
2.	If so, will new tenders be invited?
3.	Have plans and specifications of this work
been prepared ?	.
4.	If so, by which Department?


Hon. Mr. REID (Grenville) :: 1.	Under consideration.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Railways and Canals.



ST. JEAN POST OFFICE.

Mr. DEMERS:: What have been the receipts of the post office in the town of St. Jean, St. Jean and Iberville County, for the years 1918, 1919 and 1920?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 1918, $19,532.25; 1919, $25,181.25; 1920, $15,365.96.

_ CONTRACTOR DEMERS.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What contracts have been awarded to contractor Demers for the delivery of the mails in the city of Quebec, either through the medium of letter boxes, door to door delivery, etc. ?
2.	What is the amount of each contract?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 1 and 2. Quebec and Clearance of Street Letter Boxes, etc., $11,995.00 per annum; Parcel Post Delivery Service, 40c. per hour for first vehicle, 50c per hour for each additional vehicle; Quebec Post Office and Railway Stations and Wharves, $6,425.00 per annum.



LT.-COL. BURNHAM

Mr. POWER:: 1.	Have any representations been made to the Canadian Government with reference to the mission of Lt.-Col. Burnham in Montenegro?
2.	Is the Government aware that this Canadian officer was forced to submit to treatment distinctly contrary to that prescribed by the rules of international courtesy at the hands of the Serbian Government through its representatives?
3.	It is the intention of the Government to intervene on behalf of this Canadian Medical Mission in order that it may be permitted to carry out the work for which it was intended, namely, the relief of the thousands of disease-stricken inhabitants of Central Europe in general and Montenegro in particular?


Arthur Meighen: Representations were made to the Department of External Affairs in August last regarding danger to Dr. Burnham's mission in Montenegro, in consequence of which the matter was taken up with the Fereign Office and it was learned that a protest had been addressed by His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government against threats said to have been made against Colonel Burnham and that it had been intimated to the Serbian Government that it would be held responsible for the protection of Dr. Burnham's mission. His Majesty's Minister was further instructed, if a report of Dr. Burnham's arrest should be confirmed, to demand his immediate release.
A reply was received from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government that the local authorities charged with having made the threats referred to denied having done so, and that Colonel Burnham had never been for a single moment under arrest.
2. The charges of harsh treatment as received in the Department were couched in general terms indicating rather friction with the local authorities during a period of disturbed conditions due to war with

Albania, than any serious denial of right, and they have been denied by the Serbian Government which asserts that Colonel v Burnham was not threatened nor subjected to discourteous treatment.
3.	As Colonel Burnham has withdrawn his mission from Montenegro and it is not apparent either that he wishes to return or that the return of the mission is desired by the authorities in control of that country, the Government sees no reason to intervene further in the matter now.



POUND STERLING VALUE

Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	What is the present value of the pound sterling in Canada?
2.	What is the value of the Canadian dollar in England?
3.	Is the difference in exchange, if any, caused by the United States Control?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	March 1, 1921, $4.43.
2.	Approximately four shillings six pence.
3.	The value of the pound sterling in New York plus the premium on New York funds establishes the rate for the pound sterling in Canada.



ST. ROMUALD POST OFFICE

Mr. BOURASSA:: Is it the intention of the Government to construct at St. Romuald, Levis County, on land long ago purchased for that purpose, a post office replacing the present office which is an old shack?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This question contains allegations of fact and therefore constitutes a contravention of the rules. I am issuing instructions that that portion of the question shall be deleted, and in the meantime the question will stand.



BONAVENTURE-GASPE MAILS

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department received any complaints during the past winter regarding the mail service in the counties of Bona-venture and Gaspd? If so, what was the nature of such complaints?
2.	Did the department authorize any curtailment or change in the railway mail service? If so, what, and why was such change authorized?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes-the complaint was in regard to the railway being blockaded by snow and thereby disorganizing the mail service. Regular train and mail service has been resumed.
2.	The Department did not authorize any curtailment or change in the Railway Mail Service.



CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER'S REPORTS

*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Has the Chief Electoral Officer made any reports under Section 74 of The Dominion Elections Act, 1920?
2.	If so, how many and to which elections do they relate?
3.	Will any legislation be Introduced at this session as the result of such reports?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The reports, which contain full information, have already been made. They were laid on the table of the House on the first day of the
session.



LOAN TO BELGIUM

Mr. PACAUD:: 1.	Has there been a loan granted by the Canadian Government to Belgium?
2.	If so, to what extent has the Belgian Government availed itself of this loan?
3.	Of the total Canadian exports to Belgium, charged against said loan, what portion of these exports represented manufactured goods, and what portion represented agricultural products?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Yes, by an agreement dated March 21, 1919 a credit of $25,000,000 was extended to the Government of Belgium, in order to facilitate the purchase in Canada by the said Government and by the citizens of the said Government of goods produced in Canada.
2.	$1,762,789.63.
3.	Manufactured goods (including steel rails), $1,485,045.16; Food Stuffs, $277,744.47.



REPRESENTATION OF ST. ANTOINE, MONTREAL

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is it true that the member for Saint Antoine, Montreal, has sent in his resignation as a member of the House of Commons?
2.	If so, when was it received by the Speaker of the House?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The answer to the first question is, No. The second question is answered by the reply to No. 1.



CHARGES OF THE STANDARD NEWSPAPER

*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is the Prime Minister aware of the protests and charges of The Standard of St. John, N.B., regarding the appointment of Mr. MacDonald, of Nova Scotia, to a seat in the Senate for one of the divisions of New Brunswick.
2.	If so, is it his intention to cancel said appointment, or request the resignation of the Honourable Mr. Wigmore, his Minister of Customs, on account of the numerous applications coming from New Brunswick for said senator-ship?


Arthur Meighen: In reply to the first question, one article in



the nature of protest from the paper in [DOT] question was brought to my attention. The answer to the second question is, No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

Mr. VIEN:: 1.	Who were Deputy Ministers in the several departments of the Government, on January 1, 1910?
2.	Who were they on January 1, 1921?
3.	Who were heads of branches in the various departments of the Dominion Government in 1910?
4.	Who were they on the 1st of January, 1921?


Mr. VIEN:: 1.	What are the names of the Civil Servants dismissed since the 1st day of January, 1918, and the year of their dismissal?
2.	What are the names of the Civil Servants engaged since the same date?


Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton) :: 1.	How many bonded liquor warehouse licenses have been granted to the Province of Alberta by the present Government since 1917?
2.	To whom were such licenses granted?
3.	On whose recommendation?


Mr. DESAULNIERS:: 1.	How many commissions has the Government created since 1911?
2.	What are the names of the said commissions?
3.	Who are the present commissioners in the various commissions and what are their respective salaries ?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
For a statement showing-1. The amounts loaned or the credits made by the Government of Canada since the 19th of April, 1920, (a) to Greece, (b) to Roumania.
2.	The respective dates of these loans or credits to (a) Greece, (b) Roumania.
3.	The nature of goods bought by the Government of Canada, (a) for Greece, (b) for Roumania.
4.	The names of corporations, firms or persons from whom these goods have been purchased, (a) the nature of the merchandise in each case, (b) the amounts paid by the Government to these corporations, firms or persons in each case and also the date of said payments.-Mr. Arohambault.
For a copy of the regulations concerning the official censorship during the war, the articles of newspapers which have been censored, showing the dates and places where said papers were published along with copy of all correspondence between the office of the censor and said papers.-Mr. Arohambault.
Arthur Meighen: There is no objection to the motion passing subject to this reservation-that any documents, papers, or correspondence that may be necessarily of a secret character will not he included.
For a copy of all agreements, contracts, correspondence, both letters and telegrams, and
	.
all other documents, which have passed between the Government of Canada, especially between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Dabour and the Minister of Marine and the President of the Trade and Dabour Congress, Secretary of Toronto Trade-s and Dabour Council and the labour organizations connected with the shipbuilding industry, with regard to conditions and wages affecting the men previously or at present employed by the Dominion Shipbuilding Company; also all tenders, contracts, agreements and correspondence, in connection with the building of certain ships at present under construction in. the yards of the said Dominion Shipbuilding Company at Toronto.- Mr. Duff.



FRENCH TREATY

Joseph Archambault: For a copy of the new treaty of commerce between France and Canada.


Arthur Meighen: I would prefer that this motion should stand. I am not certain of the position the matter is in at the present time.
Motion stands.



OIL IN THE PRAIRIE PROVINCES. MR. GRIESBACH MOVES A RESODUTION WITH RESPECT TO OWNERS OF SURFACE RIGHTS.

William Antrobus Griesbach: That, in the opinion of this House, should oil be found and produced in or under any lands in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, in which ownership to the sub-surface is in the Crown, the owner of the surface right shall be entitled to one-sixteenth ct such oil, provided that such owner shall have made a homestead entry, or other entry, for the^ said land prior to the date of the application for the oil lease in the sub-surface. And whereas, all existing leases contain a provision that they are subject to the provisions of the regulations in force at the time of the granting of the same and also any regulations subsequently adopted. Therefore alteration should he made in the regulations to give the owner of the surface rights a similar interest in the oil produced under leases heretofore granted in which no development work has been done upon the said lands under the said leases.
He said: The House may not be aware that a somewhat different system of land tenure prevails in the prairie provinces from that which obtains in the other parts of Canada. My information is that in the remaining provinces of Canada the old common law title exists, that is to say that the owner owns from the centre of the earth to the sky. That was the situation in the prairie provinces prior to October 31, 1887. Up to that time the Crown grant gave a title from the centre of the

earth to the sky, and the owner of the land owned all that there was to own. On the 31st October, 1887, the Crown began the policy of granting titles to the surface rights only, and reserving to the Grown the ownership in all mines and minerals which might underly the surface. During the past two or three years there has been much information to suggest that oil in large quantities would be discovered in the prairie provinces. During the last six months the evidence has accumulated to such an extent that it may now be reasonably assumed that the oil resources of Western Canada will prove to be in tremendous volume and ultimately of tremendous value to the Dominion. The State is interested, and this House is interested, having regard for this discovery and for its "potential value. The House is interested in seeing that the State shall be safeguarded in this great discovery. It ought likewise to be interested in seeing that those persons more nearly and more directly concerned are equally protected in this great discovery. The situation now is that the Crown owns the oil and the landowner owns the surface, and the titles that exist in Western Canada are largely, if not almost entirely, of this class. It is true that the railway companies and the Hudson's Bay Company hold their land grants under the old common law title without reservation, but the vast bulk of land titles in Western Canada are as I have described. If oil is discovered, the Crown may upon application issue oil leases to any persons who apply in respect to lands which are owned by hundreds of thousands of homesteaders throughout the Prairie Provinces. It is quite true that the owner of the surface rights may himself apply for an oil lease, but whatever the theory may be, and whatever the policy of the law may be-and the policy is that all men shall be equal before the law-the actual fact is that the real owner of land in the western provinces, the homesteader, the farmer, the pioneer, is completely out of touch with this oil development. The man who files is the capitalist, the investor, the speculator, the man who has access to many newspapers and scientific works and who is in touch with geologists and other technical experts. The result is that the farmer, the homesteader, the pioneer, who has developed the country, who is paying taxes to build roads and bridges, and who has made it possible for people to come 371
in and exploit the country will find that some day the Government has given a lease to drill for oil upon his property, and should oil be discovered he has to sit by with his hands folded while the oil lessee walks off with all the profits there may be in that discovery.
In the United States, where the old common law titles prevails, and where the owner of the surface owns the subsurface as well, the practice has grown up and has almost come to have the force of law, that if the owner leases his land for oil drilling purposes it is on terms that he shall receive one-eighth of the oil discovered. So that the owner of land throughout the United States almost entirely should oil be discovered on his property, is sure to receive one-eighth of all the oil discovered should he so provide in his lease.
In the western country the regulations provide that an oil lease may be granted without the knowledge of the owner of the land. True, the owner of the surface rights is entitled to be indemnified for any damage that may be done to his holding, but that is all he gets out of it. Any person can apply for an oil lease upon oil being discovered; pays a royalty of five per cent, subsequently rising to ten per cent on the oil which may be gained.
I propose by this resolution that while the interests of the state are safeguarded, and the state may continue to receive the-revenues which it has legislated that it shall receive, nevertheless the owner of the land-who in our case is the farmer, the homesteader, the pioneer, the man who has made settlement and development possible, without which development it would be absolutely impossible for drilling machinery to be taken into the country-shall participate in the benefit accruing from the discovery of oil on his property, to the extent of one-sixteenth of the oil gained.
I pointed out a moment ago that in the United States the land owner is entitled by custom and as a matter of his own contract to receive one-eighth of the oil. Here I allow one-sixteenth, for two reasons. First in this country the owner does not own the subsurface rights, which remain in the Crown, and for which the Crown claims a royalty. Under my proposal the man who drills for oil under a lease from the Government would be required to pay to the owner of the land one-sixteenth of the oil gained and to the Crown five per cent, rising to ten per cent. If you equalise the royalty and the percentage, you will find

that on the basis of a royalty of one-eighth the equivalent is 121 per cent, and that five per cent is equal to one-twentieth.
If the House agrees to this proposal and allows the owner to receive one-sixteenth for the oil taken under his property, which is equal to 68 per cent, the man who has the oil lease will have to pay the 61 per cent to the owner of the land and five per cent to the Government, or 118 per cent; whereas were he to make his private arrangement with the owner of the land in the United States the oil lease would have to pay 121 per cent. Therefore my proposal so far as the oil driller is concerned is better than the arrangement that exists in the oil fields of the United States. And the advantage is this, that whereas under our system of titles ownership of the subsurface rights is in the Crown we have growing out of this discovery the possibility of the state participating in the value [DOT]of the discovery, and we have at the same time given to the surface owner the opportunity of participating in the oil discovery.
I attach great importance to this matter, and I think the time to deal with it is now, instead of waiting until the whole country is upset with excitement should big oil discoveries take place. I venture to say that if the matter is not dealt with until then, and drilling begins everywhere, followed by oil discoveries in many places, the people of the.West will wake up to the fact that they have had this great wealth under their feet and that now the full benefit is being reaped by those coming in from the outside and who have not borne the heat and burden of the day incident to pioneering in the West.
It may be that I should continue to read the resolution further to show how no principle of equity or justice is violated by the proposal. I go on to state:
-provided that such owner shall have made a homestead entry, or other, for the said land prior to the date of the application for the oil lease in the subsurface.
In the case of vacant land where an applicant for an oil lease has made application prior to any homestead right being granted, then the man who subsequently took the homestead would be doing so with his eyes open and would have no grievance. I provide that where the homesteader has his entry first, and somebody files an oil lease subsequently, then the discoverer of oil shall pay one-sixteenth per cent.
It is desirable, since the country is largely plastered at this moment with oil leases, that some attempt be made to deal with the
]Mr. Griesbach. [
situation where a homesteader has his homestead filed upon by the holder of an oil lease. The provision I would make in that respect is this: that the power which the Government have to alter these oil regulations from time to time-a power which they do exercise when they feel like it-be used to provide that the royalty of one-sixteenth of the owners shall be made effective in cases where, notwithstanding the fact that a lease has been issued, no development work has been done by the leaseholder. In cases where the leaseholder has done development work it might not be fair to interfere with the terms of his lease, but where he has done no development work under his lease his position is precisely the same, to all intents and purposes, as it would have been before he made his application, and in that case the regulations should be altered as I have suggested.
In this eastern country, from which the majority of the members of the House come, this may appear to be a very small matter, and my action on it might seem to be premature. It may occur to hon. members that as oil is not actually being produced there is no reason why the House should busy itself with a matter of this kind in anticipation of the production. But I believe it would be wisdom on the part of this House to deal with the matter now; to deal with it before a greater number of applications for oil leases are filed and before the people of the prairie provinces wake up to the fact that this great wealth which they believe to be theirs really belongs to somebody else; that the benefit and advantage of the discovery and the tremendous profits that accrue commence to go elsewhere, there will be grave dissatisfaction and grave unrest,
4 p.m. and ultimately the matter will have to be dealt with.
I do not propose to raise in this connection the question of the ownership of the natural resources of the West-a question which might properly be discussed under this head. But I do think that now is the time to go into this matter and to introduce such legislation as will ensure to the state its just and fair participation in the valuable discoveries that are about to be made, and at the same time to ensure fair and reasonable participation also to the private individual, the farmer, the homesteader, the pioneer of these western countries, to whose efforts are attributable the development of this vast and immensely valuable discovery.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this motion, had it been moved a year ago, would have been under the department over which I then presided. Now it is under the department of the hon. leader of the Senate, but I am more or less familiar with the history of oil regulations so far as the Dominion Government has control of oil, and I will endeavor to state to the House some considerations which bear upon the desire of the hon. member as expressed in this resolution.
The history of oil production in Canada has shown as yet a very meagre total output. I am not sure that my percentages are right-the hon. member for Lambton would be familiar with the figures-but I think that we in Canada as yet produce only about two per cent of the oil consumed in this country; consequently the record to date is rather a record of search and exploitation-of hope deferred, rather than hope fulfilled. So much has this been the case that for many years, in place of seeking to obtain a revenue by royalty from oil production, the Government of Canada has placed a premium upon oil production, and very considerable sums have, over a period of many years, gone from the treasury as a bonus on the production of oil in this country. Indeed, I question whether the oil industry of Ontario would have survived in any substantial degree had such a system of bonus not prevailed. There have of late years been very hopeful indications of oil discovery on a large scale in Western Canada. There has, of course, been oil production there already, but the record of the whole mater so far as the West is concerned up to date is rather a record of rentals paid and the administration of leases sold by speculators than a record of actual oil production by men who seriously intended to produce. The treasury has come off much better than the investor in relation to oil in Western Canada up to now. While it was the case that a bonus was being paid to encourage oil exploration and oil production about twelve years ago, it was deemed expedient by the then Government that this degree of encouragement should be given: that leases might issue up to 1931, which would contain a clause exempting the lessee from all royalty whatsoever. Many leases of that character were issued. About a year and a half ago that regulation was rescinded, as it then appeared that there might at any time be oil discoveries on a large scale. Not only was that regulation rescinded, but efforts were made to ascertain what leases were in arrears to such a degree as would justify cancellation, in order that as many as possible of the dead leases outstanding under the old regulations could be made to lapse, and provision was made that at any time thereafter oil royalties might be imposed. After I ceased to hold that office, the present Minister of the Interior introduced regulations, which were adopted, providing that in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta a royalty should be imposed grading upwards from 21 to 10 per cent on leases thereafter issued and on leases issued since the date when the old regulations were rescinded, and it was possible to impose royalties on oils found under those leases. Such are the regulations today in relation to the three provinces, the royalty grading from 21 to 10 per cent,
I think the 21 per cent being for five years, the 5 per cent for a little longer period, and the 10 per cent after that, and an entrant may enter for 1920 acres of land and obtain a lease therefor.
The prospect of oil appears, however, to be mostly in territory north of the three provinces, and some weeks ago regulations as to the Northwest Territories were put into effect, those regulations being of a character radically different from any yet imposed in Canada. They provided that the explorer or prospector may take out a permit for four sections; but until there is oil production, this is a permit and nothing more. He may get a lease upon actually discovering oil, but he can get a lease only for one section out of the four, the other three reverting then and there to the Crown. He thus becomes entitled to a lease for 640 acres only, and he becomes liable to a royalty of from 5 to 10 per cent, that is to say, 5 per cent until 1st April, 1926, and thereafter 10 per cent. The regulations comprise a series of 22 pages, but those are, broadly speaking, their outstanding features.
My hon. friend's proposal is to impose on all lessees who take out leases hereafter, as well upon those who have leases which make them subject to regulations imposed subsequent to the issue of the lease, the obligation of contributing one-sixteenth of the output to the owner of the surface rights, in cases where the Crown is the owner of only the sub-surface and where the surface itself is held by a homestead entrant who entered prior to the taking out of the lease, or where it is


William Antrobus Griesbach: In oil discoveries,
the oil does not lie within the four corners of the quarter section, the oil lies in a pool or a field. If oil is discovered on a quarter section, the owner of that quarter section ought to have an interest in that oil. But what follows? The man across
tMr. Meigrhen.]
the road, who, the Prime Minister says, should be in the same position, is in fact in the same position, because now someone will come to him and lease from him his land with reasonable assurance that he too will strike the same field.


Arthur Meighen: If my hon. friend is
right, and if one man who happens to own the surface rights where the first oil well is sunk is in just the same position as the man across the road-because the oil will be under him too-let us proceed with that further: the oil will be under the whole country and all will be equally entitled.


William Antrobus Griesbach: No.


Arthur Meighen: No, it will not. Therefore, my hon. friend's reasoning is wrong.


William Antrobus Griesbach: I am half wrong as
you are wrong.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps that is so,
but there is a limit to the area which the oil traverses and the owners of the surface rights in that area seem to me to be entitled to compensation for what they suffer in relation to their property rights; but as between them and the owner of an adjoining area under which there is no oil at all, I am not yet convinced that they have any special claim.
I am not convinced there is any difference in claim between the one set of owners and the other, but I am not giving that as a final determination. I am sure the hon. member would not at this time ask that, with the consideration that is possible	to	be	given to a	subject ofthis kind and importance in a discussion	in	the	House,	oil	regulations
should be here and now passed. They must naturally be the subject of scrutiny by the experts of the department, assisted by the best possible advice they can get, and I assure my hon. friend that the suggestion he makes will have consideration by the Government. If he would prefer, there would be no objection at all to the adjournment of the debate in order that others may take part in it at a later date to better advantage, or he might withdraw his motion, whichever he chooses. If it is his desire that the debate be adjourned, I, being on the floor, will so move.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT PRINTING BUREAU

[Stage Direction]
Hon, RODOLPHE LEMIEUX moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, a drastic investigation should be held in connection

with the wanton destruction of most valuable documents alleged to have taken place during recess at the Printing Bureau.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the House with this motion. It was drafted merely to call the attention of the House and the Government to the very serious-accident, shall I say-which took place a few months ago at the Printing Bureau. From the press reports it appears that several tons of most valuable documents were destroyed. I understand that a firm was appointed by the Government not very long ago to investigate various departments, and especially the Printing Bureau, and we were informed by the press-I do not know whether it is a fact, but such was the report-that whilst this firm was proceeding with its investigation many very valuable documents which had accumulated in the Government buildings since Confederation, and even prior to that, were ordered to he destroyed. I remember reading in the papers at the time of this destruction, that some of the blue books which were destroyed or sold would have been most valuable to the public archives of Canada; in fact, one of the archivists told me that some of these documents could not be found elsewhere in the world to-day, and their value could not be estimated in terms of dollars and cents. I am told that on different occasions from different countries of the world, especially from Great Britain, requests have come for some of these documents, which dated very far back in the history of the Confederation. Now the object of my motion is	to	ascertain who	was
responsible for this destruction, what documents have been destroyed, and whether the Government intends to make a drastic investigation so that punishment will be meted out to the parties who are found to be responsible. I cannot for one moment believe that the gentlemen who were engaged in the investigation of the Printing Bureau were authorized by anyone in the Government to destroy these documents. Blue books are published from year to year, and sometimes a great many of them remain on the shelves; they may not be wanted presently, but they may be wanted later on, and we must always provide for future needs. I remember reading the history of the Parliament Buildings' fire in Montreal in 1849. The story of that fire, which occurred under circumstances with which we are all familiar, was told by a gentleman who occupies a very enviable position in the world of letters, and he gives a list of the public documents and blue books which were destroyed and cannot be found anywhere else in the libraries of Canada. What a national loss such a fire was for the writers on the history of Canada! With regard to the destruction that has taken place recently, an archivist in the employ of the Government told me that to his own personal knowledge some of the blue books which have disappeared were invaluable and could not be replaced.
I shall not delay the House further, but I should like to know from the right hon. the Prime Minister if an investigation is being held, and if so, the nature of that investigation, and whether the Government intends to take the necessary steps to punish the guilty parties?
Arthur Meighen: The question raised by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) is also referred to in one, if not more, questions that appear on the Order Paper to-day. The first time this matter came to my attention, speaking from memory, was about four months ago, perhaps only three. I made such inquiry as I was able to make of other members of the Government and elsewhere. The complaints that were raised were very much of the same nature as those expressed to-day by the hon. member to the effect that valuable books had been destroyed, or rather, it seems to me the way it was put was this-that they had been turned over to the contractor who had the contract for the waste paper that gathers around the Parliament Buildings. Valuable documents that had been stowed away were, either by mistake or design, turned over to him. I think that is the way it was put to me. At all events, these documents had been put out of the road and were no longer the property of the Government. I am glad to be able to say to the hon member that the Government took action in this matter some time ago. I cannot recall the exact date, but it must be now a matter of some months. The inquiry was ordered under the Inquiries' Act, and his Honour, Judge Snider, of the County Court of Wentworth, was appointed a Commissioner under that Act with the fullest possible powers, because the Act itself gives the powers. The wording of the Order in Council was in the amplest language, to investigate and ascertain who was responsible for the destruction and removal of these books and documents.

There has been no report from that commission as yet. I know they have held sittings, but I do not know whether they have concluded their investigation. The Government requested Col. O. M. Biggar to act as Government Counsel on the enquiry to assist Judge Snider in the investigation. The House will remeher that under the terms of the Dominion Elections Act which passed last session Col. Biggar was appointed Chief Electoral Officer, and to him was also assigned the duty of assisting as Counsel for the Government in investigations of this character. Consequently he was the appropriate Counsel to select in this instance, and I know that he has been engaged with Judge Snider in the investigation. I made enquiries a moment ago of the Minister of Justice to ascertain whether he had any word as to reports from the investigation, and he tells me he has not. I am therefore of opinion that His Honour Judge Snider has not yet reported, but I can assure the hon. member that I am awaiting the report with interest, and if it shows that there are parties guilty of crime in any degree they ought to be punished, and it is the intention of the Government not to refrain from proceeding with their punishment.


Thomas Vien: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether any steps were taken to recover any property that was possible of recovery?


Arthur Meighen: As I understood the complaints, the property was gone past recovery. If that turns out not to be the fact, of course we shall take every step to recover what has not been lost.


Thomas Vien: No investigation was held to see whether the property was recoverable?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that is the part of the investigation.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Arthur Meighen: There is no need of the motion being adopted. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it should not be adopted because the enquiry has already been under way.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My desk mate, the hon. member for Russell, (Mr. Murphy), intended to say something on this subject and I would move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



STANDARDIZATION OF PARTS OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARCHIBALD BLAKE McCOIG (Kent) moved that to-morrow the House

do go into Committee of the Whole on the following proposed resolution:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to bri'ng in a measure to provide for the standardization of parts of agricultural machinery, and to enact,-
1.	That from and after the first day of November, 1922, all agricultural implements and farm wagons manufactured in Canada for use within Canada, shall with respect to the following parts, namely:-Gram Binder Knife Sections, Knife Heads and Pitman's, Mowing Machine Knife Sections, Mowing Machine Knife Heads, Mowing Machine Pitman's Clamps, Mowing Machine. Guards and Guard Ledger Plates, Hay Rake Teeth, Land Cultivator Teeth and Cultivator Points, Sprocket Chains -different sizes, Plough Points, Plough Sole Plates, Plough Clevises, Ensilage Blower Pipes, Nuts for Waggon Arms, Machine Bolts and Nuts ; be made to conform to the standards prescribed by regulations to be made by the Minister of Agriculture prior to the first day of November, 1921, and approved by the Governor General in Council; and that further and other regulations may be made by the Minister from time to tiime.
2.	That from and after the first day of November, 1922, no agricultural implement or farm waggon shall be manufactured* in Canada for use within Canada which with respect to the said parts fails to comply with the regulations then in force, and any manufacturer of agricultural implements or farm waggons for use within Canada violating these provisions or regulations shall incur a penalty of not less than $200, and not more than $1,000.
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: Will you be good
enough, Mr. Speaker, to inform the House what action was taken in respect to the resolution just read?


Georges Henri Boivin: This resolution, Order No. 30, is a resolution which precedes the introduction of a Public Bill relating to trade. The action taken was a decision that the House be moved into Committee of the Whole to-morrow on the said proposed resolution.	'


Arthur Meighen: The only point that arises in my mind is whether or not the passing of the motion to go into Committee in respect of a resolution preceding a public Bill involves the acceptance by the House of the principles of the resolution. I should not like to take that- responsibility without further study of the resolution.


Georges Henri Boivin: The action taken by the House cannot involve the acceptance of the principle of the resolution. The rules provide that such resolutions shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole House before any decision or vote of the House is passed thereupon. The motion was not debatable and is in effect only a notice that the resolution will be

considered at the next sitting of the House, that is to say, the first time that Public Bills and Orders may be reached.


Arthur Meighen: That is satisfactory.



CANADIAN NATIONALS DEFINITION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill number 17 to define Canadian Nationals.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the Minister please explain the purpose of this Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not contemplate
to-day going further than getting the Bill into the committee stage. The purpose of the Bill is to define Canadian Nationals, and it would seem to me that the discussion of the definition might very properly he held in Committee. It seems to me highly probable that I may feel desirous of amending the Bill so as to make more complete the definition that is therein contained. I would suggest to the House that the Bill have its second reading, and when we get into committee stage I would move that the committee rise. We could then deal with the question later.


Andrew Ross McMaster: On the understanding that we can discuss the principle?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, there would be
no objection to a discussion of the principle in committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that
one or two members on this side of the House desire to speak on this Bill and possibly to refer more particularly to the principle involved. Under the circumstances, I would suggest that the minister do not press his motion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, in the event I will not press my motion at the present time. It does seem to me that for the purpose of the discussion of a principle it would be desirable that we should have before us a complete definition. Therefore, there is a desire for discussion upon the motion, I would move the adjournment of the debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to point out to my right hon. friend that we were not expecting to go on with this Bill to-day, and that a good many members are absent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that, and I was rather impressed with the idea that that might very probably be the case. I
realize that there is room for a very interesting discussion, and I would therefore move that the debate on the motion for second reading be adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ANDREW ROSS McMASTER (Brome) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10 to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act. He said: Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere of the Chamber this afternoon lends itself to the observations which I have to bring before the House, as the matter is of an essentially non-partisan and, I trust, of a non-contentious character. The atmosphere, the member for An-tigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) suggests sub-rosa, is of a chilly nature and certainly the Speaker or the Deputy-Speaker might endeavour to prevent the draughts which circulate in the Chamber from affecting members from time to time. However, that is not the subject of my remarks this afternoon. The object of this Bill is to make it incumbent upon ministers of the Crown to resign all directorships which they hold in incorporated companies when they accept their portfolios. The first argument I wish to make in favour of the principle of the Bill is that it is in consonance with the best Canadian practice. My information is, Mr. Speaker, that when the member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) the former Premier, accepted office in 1911 he resigned all directorships which he held, and encouraged all his colleagues to do so. Had that wholesome practice been followed, there would have been no necessity for the debate which is going to take place this afternoon.
My next point, Mr. Speaker, is that the abandonment of directorships by ministers of the Crown is in line with the best British practice. It is not always the case in Great Britain that men who occupy the positions of ministers of the Crown resign their directorships, but my opinion is, and I believe it is correct, that it is the best British practice to resign directorships when accepting a portfolio. I read from the British Hansard, Fourth Series, Vol. 93, Page 216, a citation which I take from a discussion of a similar character to the one we are now entering upon, held in the British House some years ago. The precedent of Lord Rathmore had been alluded to. He was a very honourable man, but his case
[Stage Direction]
formed a very bad precedent for his was a most striking case of a minister of the Crown uniting with that position the. directorship of innumerable companies. According to the directory of directors that gentleman was a director in no less than ten companies. Now, I think that at least the ministers of the Crown will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, when I lay down as one of the premises of my argument that the life of a minister of the Crown in this country is one of arduous and unremitting toil.
Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: 
Mr. LEMIEUX:: La Banque d'Hochelaga.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, La Banque
d'Hochelaga, La Banque Provinciale-in my hypothetical case we will give the province of Quebec and the French institutions full and ample representation. Now, suppose at the same time the Minister of Finance-and this is a hypothetical proposition, absurd on its face-was a director of the Bank of Montreal, and suppose he gave this position to the Bank of Montreal, what an outcry there would be, and how the people would think that something was wrong. How easily the public would think he had been influenced in making his choice by the fact that he was a director of that bank. Those are merely hypothetical illustrations, but I say they show the advisability of making it impossible for such things to happen by providing that when ministers of the Crown accept office they should cease being directors of companies.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what are the possible objections to my proposal? They are, I imagine, certain possible objections. It may be said that laying down the proposition as I have done in the Bill which I have introduced I have been too wide and sweeping. We can imagine a case of this sort, a minister of the Crown being a director of a mutual life insurance company. Such a company is of a quasi-benevolent nature. I suppose there is no truer philanthropy that a man of moderate means can practice than to insure his life for the benefit of his wife and children. It may be that our insurance laws are so carefully administered that loss in such a company is practically impossible, and that the minister in giving the influence of his name to a mutual life insurance company is merely encouraging people to do what is right. The same sort of argument might apply in large measure to a director of a savings bank. I can quite imagine that hon. members may bring to the consideration of this question arguments which may tend to show that the proposal is too wide. Why have I brought it in this wide form? Because I believe that if you try to draw the line you will meet with more trouble than if you do not admit the wisdom

of directorships of any sort or kind being held by ministers of the Crown. Suppose a man has built up a business and subsequently turns it into a one-man company. It may be said: Well, it is unfair to ask that man to give up the directorship of that company if he joins the Government. There may be something in that, but the answer I would make to this: that if he is going to do his duty as a minister of the Crown he really will not have time to attend to his business.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Will my hon. friend permit a question here?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Certainly.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would the hon. member carry it this step further: that if a man was engaged in business-had not formed his one-man company, but was in a firm or was carrying on business-he should abandon or liquidate his business upon becoming a member of the Government?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, I would not say that. I grant, Mr. Speaker, that the line is pretty narrow. It is much the same as in the case of the age at which a person may legally make a contract; if a man is twenty-one years of age he may legally make a contract, but if he is twenty years and nine months of age any contract he makes might be subject to attack. I admit that the distinction is pretty fine, but I do not propose to go so far. I do not think it would be in the public interest to say that a man should give up all his private business when he becomes a Minister of the Crown. I do think that if he can so arrange matters that he will be able to give up all active participation in his private business, leaving it to others, and to devote his whole time and attention to the public business, that is the ideal thing for him to do. After all, Mr. Speaker

we are discussing this matter in the most friendly fashion-how much practice of the law can the Prime Minister carry on at present at Portage La Prairie? Not very much; he has had to give it up, and there are members on this side who, if they went into the Cabinet, would have to lay aside their law practice for the time being.
And the man who lays aside his law business is not merely giving up, so to speak, the interest on his capital; he is jeopardizing even his capital and is jeopardizing his practice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, somewhat more is expected of lawyers than of other classes of the community.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There is a great deal in that. I do not know any class of the community which renders more unselfish public service than the lawyers do. The doctors, too, give a great deal of unselfish public service, and perhaps more unselfish private service than the lawyers do.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Why has the hon. gentleman set a period of fifteen days as the limit of time within which a man must resign his directorship after becoming sworn in as a Minister of the Crown? I should think it would be better to provide a period of fifteen days after his election, because it might so happen that after the election there would be no occasion for his resigning any directorship.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is a matter
which, I think could be taken up in committee. As the father of the Bill, I would be prepared to accept an amendment in that connection.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: To be a director in a concern a man has necessarily to be a shareholder. Must a Minister, in resigning his directorship, also part with his shares?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, I do not propose that for a moment.


James Dew Chaplin: Then his interest is there just the same.


Andrew Ross McMaster: His interest is there, it is quite true. But a shareholder has not. as a rule, the same control of policy that a director has. Quite often in large companies a man is asked to subscribe to shares, or is sometimes given qualifying shares, so that the company may enjoy either the direct benefit of his experience and business ability, or the
5 p.m. prestige of his name.
I frankly grant that you may ask me questions which are difficult to answer as regards the differentiation of private interests as between the shareholder and the director. I can imagine a case in which the private interest of a large shareholder in a company is much greater than the private interest of a director would be who might be a small shareholder. We could not, in fairness, shut out people who were shareholders in all companies from membership in the Government, because if we did we should too greatly limit the choice.


Mr. STEVENS:: Suppose a man holds twenty-five per cent of the stock of some institution, and is a director and prominent member of it. He enters the Government, he resigns his directorship and retains his

stock in the company. All he does is simply hide from the public his active interest, still retaining his real interest in the company. What is the difference?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Well, there is this difference: It is true that he retains his personal interest, but his fiduciary interest disappears. My hon. friend will realize that an honourable man will be more careful of the interests which he represents as a trustee than he will be of his own interests, and the cutting off of directors from portfolios does cut off from the Cabinet the possibility of conflicting fiduciary interests-the fiduciary interests of the director who represents his shareholders and that of the Minister of the Crown who represents the whole people. I quite agree that the personal interest of the shareholder remains; that is something which I do not think we can get rid of without unduly limiting the choice of Ministers of the Crown. But it is quite possible to prevent the carrying of interlocking directorates- which, I think, are now far too prevalent throughout the country-into the circle of the Cabinet itself.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member not think that if his Bill is to be accepted it should, under our present practice, apply as well to the leader of the Opposition?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would have not the slightest objection to its applying to the leader of the Opposition.


Arthur Meighen: And to the leaders of both Oppositions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I know my own leader and can speak for him; I am sure he would not have the slightest objection to having it apply to him. As regards the leader of the Opposition sitting angularly opposite, I cannot speak for him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But does the principle apply?	.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There is, of course, the consideration, as the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) remarks, that there is no salary attached to the position of the leader of the other Opposition.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the point.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is not the great point, I admit. If that is the only thing standing in the way of the Government's acceptance of my Bill, I would be willing
to go one step further and have it apply to the leader of the Opposition as well.


Arthur Meighen: It would be of no use to have the one without the other.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I
should say right at the moment that I should feel it distinctly in the public interest to have the provision apply to the leader of the Opposition.


Arthur Meighen: I really had not my hon. friend in mind; I was just leading through him to the other.


Andrew Ross McMaster: A sort of oratio
obliqua. In bringing my remarks to a close,
I must thank the House for the kindly, friendly and patient attention that has been, given to my remarks. I am asking only that we place upon the Statute Book what I regard to be the best and the prevailing practice. I do not believe the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen), who leads the Government to-day, is a director in a company. He indicates by a shake of the head that he is not. I know that the last leader of the Government, the present member for King's N.S. (Sir Robert Borden), resigned his directorships. I remember, shortly after he became Prime Minister, having to examine the books of a very small company down in Nova Scotia and seeing on the books that he had sent in his resignation because he had become a minister of the Crown. I know that the only directorship which my late leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, ever accepted, was in a mutual life insurance company. Therefore, I am asking this Government to accept legislation that will merely crystallize in the form of a statute the best prevailing practice. It may be said, of course, and it will be urged, perhaps in this debate, that we should leave this matter to the individual feeling of delicacy and propriety of the ministers themselves. That has not been done in regard to senators and members. Under the Senate and House of Commons Act, their obligation to refrain from bringing before the House legislation in which they are interested, as lawyers, for instance, is very clearly set forth, and their in*-ability to have an interest in a contract with the Government is also very clearly set forth. Therefore, that argument is offset by the fact that we have crystallized in the form of a statute the best prevailing practice as to members of Parliament, and I submit that what I ask for is right, and that it is calculated to enhance the honour and prestige of public men in this Dominion of Canada.


Sir EDWARD KEMP (Toronto East):: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: He would not be disqualified; if he accepted the portfolio, he would have to resign his directorship. His directorship would not prevent his being chosen; but after he was chosen, he would have to choose between the retention of his portfolio and the retention of his directorship.


Albert Edward Kemp: I quite understand that, but that, to my mind, is rather a technical argument. A man publicly has his name on his letter head or bill head or

whatever you like as a director of the company in which he is interested; he then becomes a member of a government, and he removes his name as director, and if he is asked across the floor of this House, if he is a director of this company, he says: "No," but practically his position is the same as it was before; he does not sell out; he cannot dispossess himself; he cannot sacrifice his rights; it is not likely that he would sacrifice his rights, and yet he may be in a position to be of great service to the government of whatever party it may be. My hon. friend probably did not have that matter which I have outlined as much in mind as he had what he termed interlocking directorates. If you stand several individuals up in line, all of them in different occupations and professions, how is it possible to say who is best qualified for Cabinet rank? A man might be a director in one or two or more financial corporations-let us get away from the smaller businesses- a government might be formed, and his services, because of his wider experience in the affairs of this country might be thought to be better than those of another man whose name is not connected with any corporation. The men whose names appear as directors of corporations are generally understood to be men who understand the affairs of this country as well as and, in most cases, have wider experiences in our country's affairs than other men, and consequently they would be more useful to this country. I cannot, therefore, see how you can pass a law to debar such men from becoming members of government in this country any more than you can pass a law saying who shall be members of government, and what occupations they shall hold in order to be members. My hon. friend gave some precedents in England, but the situation there is very different from what it is in Canada. Ninety per cent of the members of this House, whether they are in professions or in business, have risen from the ranks, and everybody, if he is looked upon generally in the community in which he resides, as a man of sufficient experience to become a member of a government, is supposed to be qualified in one sense or another for such a position. As I said when I rose, I did not intend to say more than a few words on this question, and I have not covered the subject at all; but it seems to me, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Brome has approached the subject in what appears to be a very impartial way, his argument is full of inconsistencies.

Mr. JOHN H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough) : Mr. Speaker, I was struck with the speech of the hon. member for Toronto East (Sir Edward Kemp), but I think he has forgotten the fact that Parliament has already taken the step that he thinks is a hardship. Parliament has provided that a member of this House must not do any business with the Government. We have gone so far as to debar every member of the House of Commons in this respect. If my hon. friend will refer to the provisions of Chapter 10, cf the Revised Statutes, he will see that the most drastic provision to this, effect is made. My hon. friend's illustration of John Smith in his personal capacity, and John Smith Limited, does not apply, because even now if John Smith is not Limited he cannot be a minister and do business with the Government. He cannot be a member of this House and do business with the Government.
My hon. friend points out how difficult it would be to find a man to accept a position as minister of the Crown if he was prohibited from engaging in business. But we prohibit them already, because if John Smith is in business and becomes a member of this House, or a minister of the Crown, in his personal capacity he must not do any business with the Government. If he does, he becomes disqualified as a member of the House and as a minister of the Crown. So we have that prohibition already. Why should we make any distinction between John Smith in his personal capacity and . John Smith Limited? Why should we prohibit John Smith in his personal capacity from doing business with the Government, if we are not at the same time going to prohibit him as John Smith Limited? The same principle is involved in both cases. If my hon. friend is not willing to pass this Bill, I think he ought to be willing to repeal Chapter 10, of the Revised Statutes, which provides that John Smith must not do any business with the Government. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the proposal of my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. Me-Master) is sound. Shareholders are excepted under the law because, of course, it would be a hardship for a man of any means to have to dispose of his shares; that would be throwing away his property. But a director is in a much different position. My hon. friend from Brome has pointed out very clearly that it is the
duty of a director acting in a fiduciary capacity to try and get a contract from the Government for his firm; it is his duty to do everything he can to make money for the shareholders that he represents. On the other hand, it is his duty as a minister of the Crown probably to give the contract to somebody else. These are two conflicting duties, and I can see no great hardship in compelling a man who accepts a position as minister of the Crown to resign his directorship in any company he is interested in. My hon. friend from Brome has pointed out that that is the practice already with some members of this Government. Very recently my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. McCurdy) after joining the Government resigned his position in the firm in Nova Scotia with which he was formerly connected. Similar instances have been pointed out by my hon. friend from Brome. The practice exists now. I think it is a good practice, and that it would be a good thing to have it embodied in the statutes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I have followed
this debate with very great interest, and with my hon. friend from Toronto (Sir Edward Kemp) I commend the tone adopted by my good friend from Brome (Mr. Me-Master) in discussing this important question. While I have not gone deeply into the matter, I must say that I differ from my hon. friend from Toronto in the view which he takes of this Bill. He says that v men ought not to be debarred from joining the Government by the fact that they have large interests in limited companies and are directors on their boards. My hon. friend from Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) has just cited the section of the Revised Statutes which debars members of parliament from entering into any contracts with the Government. But there is a more glaring instance. My hon. friend will also find that the Revised Statutes of Canada provide for the independence of the Bench. Some years ago this Parliament amended the Judicature Act to provide that judges who had been appointed directors and were drawing directors' fees in joint stock companies or in any other company must resign. I may be told at once that no judge was ever accused of being partial in his decisions because he was a director of a company. That may be the case, but there is a great principle involved in this matter, and it is that the public must

have absolute confidence in the integrity and probity of those who administer the law. It was for that purpose-that the public might respect the more the Bench of Canada-that this Parliament decided that judges should not be directors of any company. The legislation evoked considerable discussion at the time, and some of the judges protested against what they called this hardship being imposed upon them; yet public opinion ratified the action of Parliament. Every litigant approved of it because, as we say in common parlance, Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. Justice must be protected not only by herself-and I use the word "herself" because I see her living on the Bench, personified by the judge who administers the law- she must also be protected against her own self, and that is the reason why Parliament decided that judges should have no interests as directors of companies. I may be told that ministers of the Crown are not judges. True, in a sense; but they make the laws. They decide long before-hand what laws shall be introduced, and therefore it seems to me they have an equal, if not a greater responsibility than the judges themselves.
I might give another illustration to show how sensitive public opinion is in regard to those who administer the law. My right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) knows that in our province -I do not know whether the same plan has been adopted in other provinces- the relative of a judge to the second degree is debarred from pleading before the judge, nor can any member of his firm appear before him. So intent is public opinion that justice shall be above suspicion. I commend again my hon. friend from Brome for his remarks this afternoon. This is a matter that applies to both parties, to ministers of the Crown of to-day, and to ministers of the Crown of tomorrow. It is in their interests that they should be protected against their own weaknesses; for we are all human. Public opinion should be saisfied tha^ they have no monetary interest which might conflict with their duty as ministers of the Crown.
I may be told, as stated by my hon. friend from Toronto a moment ago, that business men of great ability and of substance might be debarred from giving their country the benefit of their experience. Well, let me recall to my hon. friend first of all the fact that the salaries of the ministers of the Crown have been increased. But I put that aside and I say is not the honour of being a minister of the

Crown, the honour of being sworn in as a Privy Councillor, a reward by itself? In my humble judgment, no man should hesitate, when accepting that honour, to put aside his private interests. I think I am right in this, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to say that never since Confederation, up to the present time, has there been any reason on the part of the public to suspect the personal integrity of the Prime Ministers of Canada, and I include with pleasure in this statement the name of the right hon. gentleman who to-day as Prime Minister presides over the destinies of this country. But I say that it is in the interests of the ministers of the Crown, and of good government and of the good reputation of Parliament, that public opinion should be satisfied that there are no conflicting interests between ministers as such and any directors of private (concerns. Why, it is obvious that any day of the month a minister of the Crown who has charge of a large spending department- let us take, for example, the Public Works Department, the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or the Department of the Interior might be put in a very awkward position as between his fiduciary interests as member of a board and his public duties on the other hand. It may happen any day, and therefore I think, without having gone very deeply into the matter, that my hon. friend is living up to British custom, to precedent, and tradition in advocating this legislation. My hon. friend from Toronto spoke of the difference that existed between public men in this country and public men in the Old Country. Let me tell him that in the Old Country of late there has been a hue and cry in the public press and elsewhere against members of the House of Lords, ministers of the Crown-and that is not done very often with ministers of the Crown -lending their names as promoters or directors of boards. Mr. Speaker, if I were not afraid of hurting the feelings of any one, I could mention the name of a gentleman I have in mind who played a very great part in the history of the British Empire, a name which brought to his family and to his country much honour and glory. And yet that name was besmirched. Why? Because in a moment of weakness the bearer of that great name allowed it to figure in a promoters' scheme. I think of that name because it is so very eminent. But there are dozens and dozens of such names which have been lent to satisfy some promoter's greed. Now, do

you believe that it is making for the honour and respect of public life that such things should be? I should like to have this discussion go a little further so that we might hear both sides of the question. It strikes me, after having heard my hon. friend and the objections that were made by some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side-mild objections I must say-that this is a needed reform and one which is consistent with British traditions.


Mr. FRANCIS HENRY KEEFER (Port Arthur and Kenora) :: The manner in
which this discussion has been carried on shows clearly that there is no ulterior motive behind it. But I think that the hon. gentlemen who have been advocating this proposal have not given to it the fullest consideration which its ramifications warrant. I cannot see why a minister of the Crown should be compelled to resign his directorship in any company, whether they might or might not have anything to do with government business or with Parliament, unless you carry the principle to every member of Parliament. I would not object at all if it were laid down as public law that no member of Parliament should be a director in any company, if that were deemed advisable. Personally, I think it inadvisable, because there are thousands of companies that have no transactions with any of the offices of government. But to say that no Cabinet Minister should be permitted to hold any directorship in any corporation is going too far, unless you apply the principle also to members of Parliament. The public are well protected to-day by the independence of Parliament Act, Chapter 10. There it is laid down most specifically in Section 14 that no person, directly or indirectly, shall be allowed to have any interests in any contract or agreement, either through trustee or otherwise, if he is a member 'of Parliament.


Mr. PROULX:: Does the hon. member
think that that includes a member who is a director or has a controlling interest in an incorporated company?	'


Francis Henry Keefer: As I understand, it includes any person. The Act reads as follows:-


Edmond Proulx: I am referring to the
statute as at present.
Mr. KEEF.ER: Chapter ten?


Edmond Proulx: Yes.


Francis Henry Keefer: Section 14 of chapter 10
says that no contract with the Government
is permitted if a person has any interest in it directly or indirectly. Then, section 18 says further that in every such contract there must be a clause providing that no member of Parliament is to have any share or interest in such contract, or commission, or benefit to be derived therefrom. Such is to-day expressly forbidden. There is a penalty and this qualification for any contravention of the statute. There is only one exception, you are allowed to be a shareholder. Now is it not the interest in the company as a shareholder, that should be in question? The attack is only made upon the principle of the minister of the Crown being a director. I think the Bill as drafted has not been carefully thought out. There are many things which might receive further consideration. Why should the Independence of Parliament Act be at all restricted and apply to only ministers of the Crown as directors when that Act strikes directly at every member of Parliament?
I see a great deal of force in what the member for Toronto said. If a man is carrying on a business as a partnership or as an individual, which might be a very large business, there is no interference. But if he finds it advisable to incorporate a company and to retain a seat on the board of directors in order to have some guidance of its affairs, why could he not as before incorporation, be a member of the government?


Edmond Proulx: I strongly approve the principles of the Bill presented by my hon. friend from Brome. The measure serves two purposes, one being to leave the minister free to devote his whole time to public business. I think that when a gentleman enters the Government of Canada he should be prepared to' devote his whole time and attention to the country's affairs. At the last session of Parliament the salaries of the ministers were increased so as to render them independent of their ordinary profession or calling, and to afford them a decent living. Another important purpose to be served by this Bill, which is perhaps more important, is to secure the independence of a minister so that his private interests or the interests of his friends, or of his company, should not conflict with the public interests. I would go further, and I would say that a minister should not invariably have to sell his interests in any company when he enters the Government. I would permit him to be a shareholder so long as his company did not do any business with the Government. But



the moment that company engaged upon any Government business the minister should be disqualified from remaining any longer as a shareholder in it. I would extend the principle of this Act to members of Parliament as my hon. friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) suggested. But I think my hon. friend misapprehends the meaning of section 10 of the Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons. Section 19 permits a shareholder in any incorporated company having a contract or agreement with the Government of Canada, except any company which undertakes a contract for the building of a public works. A few years ago I presented a Bill to this House to disqualify any member, or any Senator, from having a seat in Parliament if he were a director, or had a controlling interest, in any company doing business with the Government. During the war many companies, in which members of Parliament and senators were directors, or had a controlling interest, sold supplies to the Government. As my hon. friend from Toronto has said there is a great difference in the manner of carrying on business today compared with that of twenty-five or thirty years ago. To-day business is not so much done by individuals as by incorporated companies. At the time the Act was framed business was transacted mostly by individuals. The statute, as quoted by my hon. friend from Port Arthur, provides that no person directly or indirectly, or with any other, can do business with the Government, but it excepts any shareholder in an incorporated company. Well, I would not go so far as to disqualify a member of Parliament or a Senator who might be simply a shareholder in a company doing business with the Government. But I would disqualify a member of Parliament or a Senator who was a director, or had a controlling interest in a company which was doing business with the Government. If we want to preserve the independence of Parliament, and to have a Parliament independent of the Ministry, we should provide all the safeguards possible to secure that independence. When the Act was framed I believe such was the intention of its framers. But by reason of the fact that the method of doing business has been changed this independence is not fully secured, because incorporated companies in which members jf Parliament and members of the Senate have a controlling interest can do business with the Government. We know that some of these companies are one-man institutions 
or family organizations; strangers have only a few shares in them to qualify as directors. I think more wrong has been done by companies doing business with the Government than by particular individuals. I strongly endorse the principle of the Bill now before the House, but I would go further and exclude members of Parliament who are directors and have a controlling interest in incorporated companies doing business with the Government. Two years ago, when I presented a Bill to have the statute amended in this respect, I was met with the objection that some members of Parliament might be directors of printing companies who publish newspapers, and if their newspapers published Government advertisements they would be exposed to disqualification. In the Act respecting members of the Ontario legislature I believe there is a provision excepting members of the legislature who are shareholders or directors of companies publishing newspapers which in the ordinary course of business contain Government advertisements. I would be willing to incorporate that exception in the Federal statute. We have a provision similar to that in our Municipal Act to prevent the disqualification of members of the municipal council who, in the ordinary course of business, do any printing work for the municipality. I think with these exceptions the Act could be safely amended, and that we should amend it and secure fully the independence of ministers and of members of this House and of the Senate.


Mr. EDMUND BRISTOL (Centre Toronto) :: I should like to ask my hon. friend
from Brome (Mr. McMaster) if he is aware whether there is any English statute of similar character to the one he is introducing?	,


Andrew Ross McMaster: No.


Edmund James Bristol: I would have been surprised if he had found one because I recollect being in England when the late Lord Rhondda bought control of a nerve tonic called " Phosphozone," and although he was then a member of the British Government he promoted a company and put the specific on the market. He told how much good it had done his nerves and the nerves of others suffering from the effects of the war. That struck me as carrying things rather far. But I think it indicates that to-day there is no such statute in force in England as that now proposed by the hon. member for Brome. In this country we

Have had this Independence of Parliament legislation on the statute books, I suppose, for nearly fifty years without any change, and suddenly we get this bill of my hon. friend, which to me seems to be an unintentional reflection on members of the Government past, present or future. Ministers from time to time have usually been men of good standing in business and of high personal honour, and it has been the custom of this country and of Parliament to trust them implicitly, in the belief that they will give to the country their best service; and l think we can well trust to the honour of our ministers to give us the same faithful service in future as we have received in the past.
What my hon. friend from East Toronto (Sir Edward Kemp) is putting before you is, I understand, this:	If a gentleman under the name of John Smith, or John Smith & Company, has an enormous business it does not matter whether it is a partnership or not, he has a capital of say, one, two, or three million dollars, and although he may be dealing in every thing that the Government wants, he cannot enter into any contract with the Government because our Independence of Parliament Act prevents it. But adopting the system under which most modern business is conducted, he forms a joint stock company. Then under my hon. friend's Bill as brought in to-day that man on becoming a Minister of the Crown would have to resign as president or director of that company. When all is said and done, we want to get into Parliament men from all walks of life. It is the successful business men of the country who have arrived at an important position in the business world that a Prime Minister is anxious to bring into his Government, and it would be very hard indeed if any business man had to resign even from the directorship of the company which he has made a success. It is not in the public interest to ask him to resign from directorship or control of his company. So long as we are protected by the statute as it is, and so long as a member of Parliament who is a partner in a firm, as such cannot enter into a contract with the Government, and so long as a member who is a shareholder in a company cannot have his company take a contract for any public works, it seems to me the public are amply protected. On the whole I think it would be better to leave this matter to the good taste and good sense of present and future ministers rather than to pass special legislation to deal with it. It is certainly very
much in the public interest that a minister's conduct should be above reproach. I think in the past our ministers have been men of the highest standing, and I am sure that that standard is not likely to go down but rather will go up. For myself, I think it will be better to leave the law as it is.


Edmond Proulx: Does it make any difference between a contract for public works and a contract to supply a large amount of goods?


Edmund James Bristol: I am afraid the statute does make that difference; I am not making it. The statute is very clear, and I thought you read it.


Edmond Proulx: Yes.


Edmund James Bristol: The section reads:
This Act shall not extend to disqualify any person as a member of the House of Commons by reason of his being,-
(a) a shareholder in any incorporated company having a contract or agreement with the Government of Canada, except any company which undertakes a contract for the building of any public work.
It might be quite proper to amend the Act and cover other things, but that is a totally different matter. I would be quite willing to consider any such amendment when it does not deal with the question of a man having to resign as a director if he wants to take a Cabinet position. My contention is that it is better to leave the law as it is, and that it is not in the interests of good administration in this country to force men to resign business affiliations which they have built up during the period of a lifetime.


Mr. H. M. MOWAT (Parkdale) :: Mr. Speaker, it is said that in this discussion we need not he affected by party ideas, and, it seems to me, there can be no criticism whatever of the way in which the matter has been presented by the hon. member who gave us his reasons why the legislation he proposes should be enacted. But unfortunately I rather resent Bills of this kind, in that they are a statutory invasion of the realm of private honour and private morality. I always feel, and always have-felt, that when Parliament attempts by statute to regulate the conduct of public men or judges they are doing something which in the end does not help the public. If the public gets to believe that everything is done by statute, then there will be not so much anxiety to preserve private honour. I feel like being rather a drag on the wheels of justice when they go outside the

realms of crime and take up private matters.
In addition to that, I have an idea that it is not good to present to the public a predication of possible impropriety of conduct of gentlemen who are chosen as ministers of the Crown. The public should not have the idea spread upon the statutes that ministers of the Crown would do anything Which would interfere with their conduct of public business or their own dignity. It is true that a statute was passed a few years ago limiting the activities of * judges, but, as I recollect, it was not for the reason that judges would try cases in which they were interested, but that some judges, on account of the inadequacy of their salaries were inclined to go into business and were not giving sufficient time to their work on the bench.
It seems to me that if my hon. friend from Brome had suggested that the circumstances at the present time required this legislation, he would have made his argument much stronger, because I believe none of us know of any cases which have in any way indicated that ministers of the Crown have swerved from their duty simply because they happened to be bank or company directors.
There is another reason against this Bill, although perhaps this might be better discussed in committee. The Bill goes too far in that it makes no distinction between a large company which might affect a man's action and mind, and a small company in a man's home town which has nothing to do with the Government business at all. By passing the Bill in its present form we would to a large extent interfere with the rights of people in the country who had invested their means in companies only for the reason that they trusted the men who afterwards become Cabinet ministers. It is most unusual to find a man fit for a Cabinet position who is not a director of cone or more companies, especially companies of a local character, and the people [DOT]of the district in all probability invested their money solely for the reason that a prominent local man being president or director of the company they knew their money was safe. If by statute we do away with the right of that man to be a director, then we affect the rights of those who have invested their money. In other words, in the case of a man who becomes a Cabinet minister and is a trustee for people who have invested their money, any restrictive legislation of this kind is not in the public
iT'Mr. Mowat.l
interest. For these reasons, I think that the matter might very well stand for the present, especially in view of the fact that no suggestion has been made that there is any urgent need for such legislation at this time. We are going too far, it seems to me, to think out possible improprieties when no case has presented itself to us to justify any such conclusion.
Mr. H. H. STEVENS, (Vancouver Centre) : There are only a few moments .before six o'clock, and as I should like to make a number of observations in connection with this matter, I shall say just a few words before the Houses rises.
I think it has wholly escaped the attention of the hon. member (Mr. McMaster) who introduces the resolution what the practical effect of a measure of this kind might be. There is also the question whether it would serve any really useful end. With regard to the latter point, I fail to recall at the moment, and during the short time I have had to consider it, any outstanding instance where a minister of the Crown in Canada- speaking now of all parties-has in any way flagrantly abused his position and thus given occasion for the measure which my hon. friend now brings forward. I think it is a sound principle for this House to follow to avoid legislation that is not called for. We have altogether too much legislation in this country-altogether too many artificial safeguards, if you like, or imaginary safeguards, and it is about time that we as a Parliament studied how we could avoid legislating on various subjects rather than seek out subjects to legislate upon. I submit, in the same spirit in which my hon. friend so admirably introduced the matter, that no evidence has been forthcoming in support of this kind of legislation. That is my first point, and I think it is an important one.
Another point relates to the practical side of it. Take, for instance, the cooperative associations. I have not particularly in mind my hon. friends across the way, but it is a fact that all over the country, in nearly every county throughout the provinces, there are co-operative businesses. Now, a director of one of these co-operative associations would be debarred from membership in the Government. Or take the case of a man operating a real estate, insurance and ordinary loan business, a financial brokerage business. Invariably that class of business is carried on under some corporate name, and fre-

quently two or three men may be partners and own virtually all the stock; or the business may be entirely controlled by one man. If a member of such an organization became a minister of the Crown, he could resign his directorship on the understanding with his colleagues that when he should cease to be a minister of the Crown he would come back to his old position. In that way the Bill would, I think, put a premium on subterfuge and evasion, rather than maintain what the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) very properly referred to as the high standard of honour which has characterized the public life of Canada, from before Confederation down to the present time. There are other points to which I wish to refer, Mr. Speaker; I would move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen the House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Monday, March 7, 1921.